JW Insider

Here I thought I was done, then I get goaded into another response. A few semesters of Hebrew doesn't make me an expert, but I can say that this is simple, straightforward, unambiguous Hebrew. No expertise required. The term "IT" is not a standalone pronoun but is implied in the conjugation of a third person masculine singular verb. If the verb had been about a male person then, of course, the masculine implied pronoun could be translated "he." Sometimes the number and gender of an implied pronoun can help pinpoint an antecedent that is further distant than the current sentence, but we get no help to do that in this case. I'm not saying it's impossible, because Hebrew is pretty flexible in providing a range of meaning from simple constructs. But there is nothing that would push it back and a very strong hint that we should only look for a close antecedent. By that I mean, that the sentence is about "singular" EVERY HERB and "singular" EVERY TREE. Every tree sounds plural to us, but sometimes as in English, we could say, "I've given you [every] HERB and TREE from which to eat. IT's your food" In that case a singular construct is the same as the plural construct "I've given you all HERBS and TREES from which to eat. THEY are your food." In this case the Hebrew uses singular constructs with "every" and the actual [masculine] antecedent appears to be just as closely associated with the phrase like "in which trees a fruit bears a seed." As if to say "I've given you every herb bearing seed and every tree with fruit bearing seed . . . [every one, every where] . . . IT will be your food. In English we are sometimes more comfortable thinking of these are plural so it's OK to translate . . . "THEY will be your food." Since it's nothing too complicated, I think any of the following translations give the sense perfectly well: And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. NLT Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. NIV Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. ESV And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. CSB God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This will be food for you, NASB20 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; I am not dogmatic that this restricted their diet to fruit trees and herbs, only that the account is deliberately putting emphasis on Jehovah's provisions of herbs and trees. While subduing the fish and other animals might be a reasonable indication that would come into play regarding their diet, It's still a stretch to move the antecedent of IT in Genesis 1:29 back to include the dominion over animals as food. --------------- It's interesting that ancient Jews held an extra-Biblical belief concerning the coiled, multi-headed, dragon-serpent sea monster called "Leviathan." (see Job, Psalms, Isaiah) When paradise was restored to the world, Leviathan would finally be slain and provide a huge banquet of meat for all those living in Paradise. I suppose it must have been considered a clean animal, and it would be God or archangels who would do the slaying (rather than a fight with Behemoth, for example). Otherwise I suppose the following would apply, unless there was an exception for water creatures: (Exodus 22:31) 31 “You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs.

I'm tempted, but I grabbed a few of his notebooks and didn't see anything yet. He also wrote articles for Popular Electronics, Nuts and Volts, etc., and I was looking to see if this was in them. All I find so far are a lot of amp and pre-amp circuit designs etc. This just reminded me, I have an electric guitar (Mosrite/Ventures) that I once played in the District Convention orchestra, where my dad had built a simple amplifier into the case, into the small compartment along the neck for picks and extra strings. To save space he built it in "3-D" to fit into the box instead of on a larger flat circuit board, so the amp looks like an exposed mesh of wires and components attached to a 3 inch speaker, which could be mic'd at the assembly. I took it out when someone bought me a portable Marshall amp, but now I wish I had kept it as a "souvenir."

The easier one that I should have taken a picture of even though it didn't work anymore was the hanging globe. It's just a small hollow metal globe sitting in a 3' x 4' x 4' pitch black space like a large wooden box with a rounded back, dark enough so that he poked holes in it and attached a few fake diamonds of different sizes on black wires at different lengths to simulate a star field behind the earth. On one side of the box there was a bright light representing sunlight but it didn't light up the back so the background still looked pitch black except for the stars. Then there was a very sensitive photocell on the other side which picked up more light if the globe tended to get pulled down (gravity). That photocell voltage was amplified to activate a strong electromagnet capable of picking up the globe from nearly a foot no more than 6 inches away. As the magnet was strengthened by the stronger light, the globe tended to be pulled up which reduced the light and weakened the electromagnet so that it appeared to be in perfect equilibrium at all times. While designing it and tweaking it, he put a bit of black foam in front of the magnet so that it wouldn't start oscillating and smash into the magnet, which would mean painting a new globe. This could happen if you placed the globe in the air too far away from the magnet, and it got full power but couldn't stop the inertia in time to stop the globe in midair as it rose quickly to the magnet. The ability to spin it was something we didn't realize would be possible until after it was built because we thought that the magnetic field was so strong it could tend to magnetize the globe into a specific "hold" that would be difficult to spin out of.

I don't actually know. This is one of the surviving student teaching aids that he built. There were several designs, some with two lights and two switches, and they worked in different ways, so I can't tell you exactly how this one worked. Each of them taught something a little different but required some thinking for EE students to guess a viable solution. I spent enough time in his labs each afternoon when students came through that I wasn't told so that I wouldn't blab to to the lab assistants. I don't want to take this one apart for fear I'll mess it up, but some of them had two conducting wires within one side or the other of the transformer and the diode (one or two were buried in the socket for a 6v lightbulb). I remember that the bulb could be replaced but the socket had to stay. This one appears to be permanently attached to its socket, so maybe it's a different design. Of course, since a diode only allows electricity to "flow" in one direction, it can become a switch on its own, or remove reverse voltage spikes, etc. I see a more modern version of one of these tricks here: And a related discussion of the probable design here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/23971/how-is-this-possible-3-leds-trick The way a hidden diode is attached to a penlight or flashlight bulb creates something similar to an LED (light-emitting diode). If it helps, I remember he made one version where if you turned the lights way down, you could still see just a tiny bit of light when it was switched on, but 10x more light when it was off. That's actually why I took the video in a dark room to see if this was one of those, but it wasn't.

That doesn't explain it well enough for me. The "baggage" of Genesis 9 appears to be retroactively applied to Adam and Eve or at least their descendants up until Noah. If an animal that died on its own is not "soulical" (whatever that means) then an animal that was killed by another animal or by a human (like Abel) is not soulical either. Also, when coming upon an animal that appears to have died on its own, how do you diagnose that it wasn't chased by another animal or human until its heart gave out? How can you quickly diagnose that a bird that's dead from an apparent broken neck had accidentally run into something or if an animal or human had caused it? A buffalo may fall off a cliff, but it may have been part of a herd that was driven off, or maybe it had mad buffalo disease and jumped. What difference does it make to its "soulicalness?" I know that some kosher butchering methods attempted to drain blood before an animal was thoroughly dead, and this seems to fit the idea of draining "LIFE"-blood from it, whereas if the animal were killed first and then strung up to drain blood, the animal is no longer a "soul" in some sense apparently, and one is draining blood from a non-soulical animal. (The method was used because the living heart helps push out the blood so it drains faster, although the method has been deemed very cruel to the animal.) Also, others have already pointed out that an animal that dies on its own may have been an unhealthy animal, perhaps even dangerous for eating or feeding to other animals, no matter how fresh it was, or how well it was treated to preserve it. You mentioned that carrion were easier to gather without the dangers of hunting, but why are we worried about the dangers of hunting? Noah had to "capture" an awful lot of animals, and it would only have been an incremental effort to kill a few of the ones captured. Adam may have had the animals subdued to such an extent that they just walked right up to him as he decided on names for them. And, for what it's worth, Adam may also have had a tattoo in the shape of a red herring in place of a belly-button. We just don't know. So, I still don't see what makes carrion such an important part of this question that started out as a discussion of the scriptural basis for refusing certain whole or partial blood products. You have provided a thorough attempt to support a specific conjecture about the dietary decrees given to Adam and then to Noah. Up to a point it's an interesting Bible discussion to me, but it still feels like we are beating a dead horse. Don't ask me how it died.

It's a matter of human's ingesting fat, whether breast-milk fat or beast-milk fat. A point may also be made that breast milk may sometimes contain blood cells of a type forbidden by Witnesses. Also, Miles never mentioned spoiled carrion, and has only been referring to fresh, and therefore potentially edible carrion (depending on the condition of the animal when it died). I have seen cooked meat left out and remain more edible-looking than freshly picked strawberries which can begin to get moldy within hours when they are left out. Like you, however, I wondered why so much emphasis on finding animals freshly dead from an accident, a fall, etc. Perhaps it is not acceptable to think that Jehovah killed animals for those skins he made (although Jehovah didn't need to; he could have created skins if it came to that). But we already know that Abel would have killed animals for sacrifice. So why the emphasis on Noah or others "finding" the accidental animal? Perhaps Miles will make this clearer.

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.

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . (1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21  Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . . 24  In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God. But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told).

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.

In the past, even on this forum, I have argued the necessity of the Noahide Laws (the Acts 15 version at least partially motivated by them) for Jehovah's acceptance of Gentiles. Not that it was counted as righteousness, but "acceptableness" at least. But we don't know that Cornelius actually feared God through a knowledge of those Noahide Laws, specifically, the law about blood, strangulation, or even the law about not eating a portion of his nutrition derived from a living animal. It's quite possible. And that idea that Cornelius may have been a proselyte actually comes from a similar idea that Jews (and therefore early Christians) would call someone a "God-fearer" only when they had already shown a desire to follow the true God. It could be a step below a proselyte. The Watchtower publications are clear that Cornelius was not a proselyte although acknowledging that some commentators have made that claim. But Cornelius may have been considered a God-fearer for other reasons, unrelated to any knowledge of or practice of Noahide-style requirements. For example, there is the reference to natural law in Romans 1: (Romans 1:19, 20) . . .because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, . . . (Acts 17:22-28) . . .“Men of Athens, I see that in all things you seem to be more given to the fear of the deities than others are. 23  For instance, while passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration, I found even an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you are unknowingly worshipping, this I am declaring to you. 24  The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; 25  nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. 26  And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27  so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28  For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’

I am not trying to say it was a resurrection of Mosaic Law provisions, only that it was decided through a conference of and entire congregation of Jewish Mosaic-Law-abiding Christians. Therefore it was part of a context that would make sense to a "Mosaic" congregation and could be approved by a "Mosaic" congregation. I don't deny that the motivation for creating a set of "Rules for Gentile Christians" was the same motivation for Rabbinical Noahide Laws. But there is some good evidence that James (maybe also Peter and the entire congregation) agreed that this particular set of Noahide Laws should find a precedent in the ONLY section of the Mosaic Law that addressed rules for Gentiles. As I said before, they just happened to closely match the four rules of that section of Mosaic Law, and just happened to be listed in the same order as that section of Mosaic Law. This might even be implied in the very statement in Acts if we read the next sentence after the decree: (Acts 15:19-21) . . .Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20  but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” Also, notice that Paul was accused of apostasizing from Moses well after being asked to accept the Acts 15 decree. (Acts 21:18-21) . . .But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ... but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of [Christian] 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 circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. Granted, this isn't the exact same as the problem of Acts 15, but we can easily see where the rumors likely had come from (Galatians).

Good point. But if meat was not a food eaten by humans at this point, then it still isn't proof that Noah and his relatives ate meat. He might have, but we don't know for sure. Another good point. As you say, it "could" mean this. Another good point. It is implied that he had permission based on God's positive reaction. Or, he may have assumed that he needed to follow Jehovah's recommended tailor-made clothing styles based his parents wardrobe. Pre-shed snake skins might not have cut it and perhaps he had already been through several sizes of animals for his own since childhood. At any rate, I won't worry about all the details of these conjectures because I still fall back upon other reasons relevant to the use of blood products by true Christians. So I'll skip to your most recent post before this one.

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.

Two things, First, there is no disagreement between us regarding what the context of Gen 6:21 probably referred (i.e., "all the foods to fit the diets of" humans and animals). Noah would have reasonable choices about putting resources on his ark. He would have naturally gathered major food items that he could readily stow on the ark. Since there was nothing prohibiting him from gathering and stowing the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, and given the rich nutrition of this food, then I see no reason he wouldn't have included such food and every reason to think he would. After all, God did take the time to issue a food prohibition, and it wasn't meat. Unfortunately, we are only discussing possibilities here. We weren't there, we don't know for sure, and there are no clear Bible verses that tell us the exact details. So none of this makes a very strong foundation or a premise for further argumentation. There are many interesting points to be made about why the Bible does include certain phrases and does not include others, and why the natural world as we see it around us (including ages-old fossils) isn't explained in detail in the Bible itself. I personally think that what is stated in Acts 15 and 21 need not rely on some specific interpretations and conjectures about natural law, Noahide law or the Mosaic law. The term in Acts is "abstain from blood." It's a good translation, yet it doesn't say only to abstain from eating or drinking it. It just says abstain. That MIGHT have meant only abstain from drinking blood or from eating products made from blood, and it probably was meant to refer in some way back to the Noahide and Mosaic references to blood. But it might even go beyond those, or it might just be a simple command for Gentiles to avoid making it difficult to join in fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers by avoiding blood when fellowshipping with those who would be disgusted by the idea. Paul seems to interpret the Acts 15 idea as not blatantly or flagrantly flaunting the freedoms that Gentile Christians have that those Jewish Christians were not ready to accept. The very idea of eating or even transfusing blood already seems disgusting to many people, even some inside the medical profession. It seems disgusting to most Jehovah's Witnesses who have repeatedly reviewed the Mosaic laws about it and the Acts 15 statement and have also heard so many negative stories about blood transfusion. So imagine how disgusting "taking" blood would seem for those Jewish Christians whose families and ancestors had been steeped in anti-blood doctrine for thousands of years. Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says: (1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. (1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . 4  Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . 7  However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. (1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it. And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols. For me, that is the starting point.

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.

That's true that it could and often does, but carrion COULD also be fresher than some of the meats found in my local meat market. It's still carrion even if it is only one hour old, and the animal died and freeze-dried itself in a blizzard. But I agree with you that there is no evidence that Noah ate such things. I don't think anyone here ever hinted, however, that Noah must have eaten such food before or after the Flood, only that fresh edible carrion might have been in animal diets. Even if animals died and were tempting food for other animals, for all we know, animals avoided carrion, and went for fresh kills. Maybe carrion birds and carrion insects and worms got that way after the flood. Although that could imply a fairly quick form of evolution.

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.

That's close enough. The trick is done pretty much per your idea, but with a hidden diode, maybe two diodes on one of the designs. Ours is not to wonder why. Ours is but to duo-diode. -- famous old expression my dad used to say I'm going to try to take this one home, although I'm sure I'll have to leae early to explain to the security at the airport that a step-down trnsformer isn't a bomb.

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.'

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion. I just figured this was one of the pitfalls of using Large Language Model /A.I. to try to enhance one's writing style and grammar, etc. G..88's writing has shows signs of this in the past. I've read that LLM/AI can confuse what someone is trying to say while it attempts to improve it, especially if the original is convoluted. Also LLM/AI can "hallucinate" ideas from its many sources, especially because it often doesn't always know to give more authority to Scripture than to various blogs and commentaries about Scripture. (Might even confuse the Flood account with the Epic of Gilgamesh which also has the different types of birds sent out.) It can probably even get the wrong impression from a joke like the one that goes: Q: "How many of each clean animal did Moses take onto the ark?" A: None. Moses didn't take any animals on the ark. Noah did. Even the idea that there were clean and unclean animals somehow identified before the Mosaic Law could confuse LLM/AI just as it confuses Bible scholars today.

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate: It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address. I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant). But you did say this: Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts. Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.

Exactly! it was no more relevant than when you asked who the first president of the Watch Tower Society was when no one else had brought that up. If anyone else wants to know, they can read a little more about him in the refereces cited in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Conley He gave a lot of money to charities and missionary societies. Started a missionary home in Jerusalem. But his support for another Bible-study publication outside the Watchotwer apparently triggered Russell to speak out against that publication, and to tell Watch Tower readers not to buy it. And Conley was not mentioned again. Not even a notice of his death or funeral, which is something the Watchtower did for several other early supporters of the Watch Tower. It's a simple matter to see that your information is false. I believe I have all the available court papers and commentaries about the case from neutral sources, opposing sources and supporting sources. She was in Australia when the judge made a ruling, and it wasn't about her statement. You might be thinking about the ruling over whether it was permissable for Mrs. Russell to bring up adultery and/or sexual misconduct in open court or not. We can sometimes find out if something has any significance to anyone by seeing whether anyone gets upset by such information. I'm not saying that you would get upset, but some people do, and that MIGHT mean that they are giving too much importance to the reputation of a man. Then it could become a scriptural matter: Galatians 2:6 But regarding those who seemed to be important+—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. There is a lot of Russell "worship" still going on among some today. Not so much Witnesses, but among some Bible Student groups who follow his writings. Then you and I agree totally on that point.