Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
Posted

“But this little fellow is essentially a scavenger, doing the work for which he was created: returning trash, garbage, and dead carcasses to the earth.” (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101992046?q=cockroaches&p=par )

Genesis 6:21 reads: “And on your part get yourself some of every kind of food that is eaten, and stow it with you, so as to have it for your eating and for theirs.” BLE (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/by/1/6 )
 

If we accept Genesis 6:21 literally for what it says, what does that mean regarding what Noah took onto the ark as food ‘for [his] eating and for [the animals]?  


  • Views 3.7k
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That is the most insane conclusion I have read since last week’s Babylon Bee! Although some scripture may be twisted into a pretzel to suggest a Snickers Candy Bar is nature’s most perfect food!

George, I have nowhere suggested that only am I entitled to ask questions. Where or how you came up with this notion is for you to explain. Just above I answered a question of yours. But, in response,

Amazing. Terrific! Wonderful insight! How can you BE so friggin’ smart? Oh … you read a lot of history? ….. well, ok then …..  

Posted Images

  • Member
Posted

Gawrsh Mickey, Ah Hyuk, Ah Hyuk . if we have ta’ start using comun cents, who knows WHAREit might lead?

… might start thinking about why Able was a tenderer of sheeps!  Ah mean, makin that big rock barbeque grill, and the smoke goin’up, an’ God gettin a whiff and likin’ it … “Hey Able, yo gonna offer me soma that?”

If we starts usin comun cents “Hey!, whazzup with da nasty animals gettin on da Ark by SEVENS … and da CLEAN by TWOs? I mean … you only need two of either.

Hmmmm … mabee to feed the meat eaters? A ham sammich fo Noah, hyenas and bears?

Oh! Oh! howzabout many of the animals on da Ark bein’ PREGGO!  Ys got one guy Hippo and a big fat preggo gal Hippo, who has a baby gal Hippo on da Ark, an’ da momma Hippo dies, and Noah recycles her into 14 bags of Purina Lion Chow!  

Add 5 out of 7 crocs and snakes andit woiks ZACTLY THE SAME WAY IT ALWAYS HAS FOR FOUR BILLION YEARS! 

WOOHAA!

…. ‘course, ya gotta start usin’ sum comun cents … and not see nuthin’ in the Bible dats NOT ‘DERE! … like Winnie da Poo, Bambi, Thumper, Tigger, and Caleb and Sophia.

HOLYMOELE!! If da lion and da lamb nap togedder, howzabout da Owl and da mouse?

I never liked Mickey, so I’d pay a dollar to see THAT!

But of kawrse, Ah Hyuk Ah Hyuk … I’m just Goofy!

 

  • Member
Posted

The society has opined that Noah took only vegetation onto the ark as for food for his family, and for the animals we was instructed to preserve alive. This is premised on a notion that “humankind and animal kind were originally designed to live at peace with one another and to get their nourishment from vegetation.” (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101983011?q="get+their+nourishment+from+vegetation"&p=par

This premise leverages the text of Genesis 1:29, 30. Though informative, this text is not a comprehensive list of food eaten by humans and animals.

Creation is also part of God’s testimony. Though Genesis 1:29,30 says nothing about it, for humans and animals, creation shows that water is an essential nutrient at every age. Creation also shows that human children were primarily nourished by mother’s milk, which milk is laced with carbohydrates, protein, fat, immune cells, minerals etc, none of which is vegetation. Creation also shows us that after death carcasses were food for animals designed as carrion eaters, which is also not vegetation.

Thought not specifically as food, we know God himself taught early humans to transplant carrion flesh onto their bodies as clothing. We also know that, initially, there was only one food prohibition upon man. They could not eat of the tree of knowledge. That was the sole food prohibition placed on the earliest humans.

Because early humans were not prohibited from eating carrion (if they needed or wanted to), and because they would have witnessed animals eating carrion as well as vegetation, and because the test of Genesis 1:29, 30 is not exhaustive, then I see no reason to think carrion was not part of what Noah was instructed to take onto the ark as food for himself (if he wanted or needed to eat it) and the animals (if they wanted or needed to eat it).

As for the premise that “humankind and animal kind were originally designed to live at peace with one another and to get their nourishment from vegetation”, eating carrion would in no way disturb peace because eating carrion is not an act of violence; no life is taken; carrion is not soulical.

These things, though all acknowledged in our literature, are not accounted for when it comes to food Noah was instructed to take onto the ark.

  • Member
Posted

Hard, hard irrefutable evidence shows the food chain is EXACTLY THE SAME now as it has been for 4 billion years.

There in NOTHING to indicate it was ever different, although with four mass extinctions, the menu changed.

The whole Disneyland scenario was invented in the 1930s by a WTB&TS lawyer, and promoted by “Judge” Rutherford.

Even ChatGBT has access to that info.

  • Member
Posted

When a complex matrix of “opines” contradicts every piece of evidence that exists, for 4 billion years, that is clear evidence of being taught by DELIBERATE fools.

”Ignorance is bliss”, so they say, but that level of ignorance is orgasmic!

When the Society sticks with hard facts, that speaks well of them. When they conjure up ridiculous fantasy, it’s embarrassing..

EB715C74-4213-4046-A8DB-EC50787D8D6C.jpeg

… even worse than when my attempts at humor bomb out.

  • Member
Posted
1 hour ago, George88 said:

Well, according to scripture and not the opinion of the Watchtower as opinions indicate, the instructions regarding diet in the Bible can be found in Genesis 1:29 before the time of the Great Flood and in Genesis 9:3 after the Flood. Prior to the Flood, humankind was directed to consume the products of both field and tree, which include grains, nuts, and fruits. Additionally, animals were permitted to eat from the abundance of "every green herb," including vegetables, green plants, and grass. This would mean that insects consumed the remains of food from both humans and animals before the Flood. After the Flood, the diet included a succulent steak with a few droplets of animal blood remaining on the meat.

In Genesis 1:29, it mentions that God gave humans every herb bearing seed, and every tree yielding fruit, as food. This suggests a plant-based diet that includes grains, nuts, and fruits. After the Flood, in Genesis 9:3, God gives permission for humans to also consume animals as food. The verse states, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." This expanded the dietary options for humans to include meat. 

Did Noah and his family have roaches with their bread and vegetables? I seriously doubt it.

So, does this mean, prior to the flood, evil individuals did not eat meat? It seems to me that this was one reason why God sought to destroy humanity due to their wickedness, as indicated in scripture, rather than being solely the viewpoint of the Watchtower.
 

 

Genesis 6:21 says, “And on your part get yourself some of every kind of food that is eaten, and stow it with you, so as to have it for your eating and for theirs.”

According to the society, carrion was a kind of food eaten prior to the flood. Creation testifies to this. Carrion eaters, like cockroaches, are part of God's creative work.

So, do we accept Genesis 6:21 literally for what it says?

If not, then aren't we interjecting a food prohibition what was never stated to Adam in the first place? I don't see anything in the biblical record prohibiting pre-flood humans from eating carrion, just like I don't see anything in the biblical record prohibiting pre-flood animals from eating carrion. Do you?

As for Genesis 1:29, 30, for reasons already stated, we know the list there of what humans could eat is not exhaustive. Though the text (Gen 1:29, 30) does not spell out carrion it also does not spell out essential nutrition like water or milk. Do you think pre-flood humans could not (did not) eat water or milk because they were not listed at Genesis 1:29, 30?

 

  • Member
Posted

It is a FALLACY to think that if God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat green vegetation and fruits and nuts, that that MEANS they could not eat anything else.

There is infinite variety. 

The Dinosaurs usedto eat rocks the size of baseballs and larger to help grind their food, and even birds today eat gravel and grit.

I can tell you from experience working in the Congo,  four days without food and a big chunk of a lion’s raw leftover gazelle would look better and better.

 

DC6237E6-F802-4EAB-90B3-98101DAFE65C.jpeg

  • Member
Posted
18 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I can tell you from experience working in the Congo,  four days without food and a big chunk of a lion’s raw leftover gazelle would look better and better.

 

Human use of carrion as food was, historically, pretty common, and more common today probably than many folks think. The Bible even talks about carrion being used as food.

I don't see anything in the pre-flood Genesis account that prohibits this, and we know if God wanted to prohibit a particular food item He could because He did actually issue a food prohibition to Adam, but it was not of carrion. On the other hand, given the testimony of creation where we find animals created to eat carrion, and given a literal reading of Genesis 6:21, it seems that carrion was a known food staple, and particularly in relation to the harsher living conditions outside of Eden.

  • Member
Posted
1 minute ago, George88 said:

I would have to say, who are we to question God when scripture itself acknowledges it? While we may ponder and form countless theories, unless someone comes forward to claim firsthand knowledge of God's conversation with Adam and Eve, informing them they could eat of every tree expect one and since they were perfect, I doubt they had carnivore desires in their flawless capacity as our imperfect thoughts and speculations can hardly comprehend the concept of perfection.

By disregarding the remaining portions of scripture, the significance of Genesis 6 is invalidated. Paul's words to the Galatians continue to haunt us, reminding us that we cannot cherry-pick favorable verses from scripture to support a misplaced argument.

What scripture acknowledges that prior to the flood humans could not eat carrion? The only pre-flood food prohibition I see is not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Are we supposed to believe that eating carrion was also a sin prior to the flood?

  • Member
Posted
3 hours ago, George88 said:

I have already mentioned and emphasized this previously. All you have to do is carefully read my post, am I not right? Everyone has the freedom to trust their conscience, but it is important to remember that our convictions are not always accurate. Our beliefs can be biased and misguided.

 So pre-flood we know it was a sin to eat of the tree of knowledge. Do we agree on that?

Now, are we supposed to believe that eating carrion was also a sin prior to the flood?

Would Adam have jeopardized his perfect condition were he to have eaten carrion when he looked around creation and saw carrion being eaten as created by God?

  • Member
Posted

Abel’s sacrifice

Among us there are some who feel that since the Bible does not rule out transplantation of human organs that accepting or rejecting such a transplantation should be left to personal conscience. And so it is among us.

With that in mind we have the biblical account of Abel’s sacrifice. The author attributed to this account is Moses. How Moses describes Abel’s sacrifice is of interest because of what he does and does not say about it. (Of course, what is unsaid could be endless, but there is an item or items of omission that are of particular interest to this subject)

Moses was very familiar with the various sacrificial offerings and statutory language depicting those offerings found in the Law of Moses. He wrote it. In the Genesis account Moses specifically uses the phrase “burnt offering” on at least seven occasions. These have to do with a sacrifice immediately after the flood, and with Abraham’s test of faith regarding sacrificing Isaac. This usage of “brunt sacrifice” is conspicuously absent in the account of Abel’s sacrifice. So, the omission spoken of is the notion that Abel’s sacrifice was a “burnt offering”.

Of Abel’s sacrifice Moses termed it “offering” and not “burnt offering”. Also, of Abel’s sacrifice Moses made sure to include that his offering included “even their fatty pieces”.

As compiler of the Law, Moses was familiar with the different sorts of sacrifices, and it was important as law giver that his readers could understand what he was describing. A burnt offering was one where the entire animal was consumed by fire. The offering that spoke about fatty pieces (not to be confused with fatty ashes) was the communion sacrifice (also known as peace offering). The main difference was that a burnt offering was not shared whereas the communal sacrifice was partly burned on the altar and partly eaten by the worshiper.

So, the question is, did Abel consume part of the sacrifice he made to God as part of a communion offering (peace offering)? This question arises because the offering mentions “fatty pieces” but not in the context of the statutory language “burnt offering” as Moses took care to do with later sacrifices spoken of in the Genesis account. Also, of the later instances in Genesis speaking of "burnt offering" sacrifices nothing is mentioned about "fat" or "fatty" pieces.

On this matter, also there is extra-biblical text in the form of the Babylonian Talmud that states “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat [heleb] thereof. What thing is it whose ‘fat’ [heleb] [only] is offered on the altar, but the whole of it is not offered on the altar? Say, that is a peace-offering.”

So what does any of this have to do with transplantation of human organs? As it is true of transplantation of human organs it is also true of Abel eating meat. As the Bible does not rule out transplantation of human organs for us, it also does not rule out eating meat for Abel.

In other words, though the biblical account of Abel’s sacrifice does not say he ate any of the animal he sacrificed, it is also does not say he didn’t. It’s also true that the sole food prohibition documented for the time was of the tree of knowledge, not meat. Abel could have eaten part of his sacrifice to God as a communion offering.





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Tout est dans le titre. En français. Il s'agit de la transcription des 66 livres de la Bible présent dans JwLibrary Rubrique Vidéos; Livres de la Bible. Salutations JPL Transcriptions Bible Introductions+.rar
    • Let the bible speak for itself: Ezekiel 38:   ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “On that day when my people Israel are dwelling in security, will you not know it?q 15  You will come from your place, from the remotest parts of the north,r you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great assembly, a vast army.s 16  Like clouds covering the land, you will come against my people Israel. In the final part of the days I will bring you against my landt so that the nations may know me when I sanctify myself through you before their eyes, O Gog.”’u...... ‘Every man’s sword will be against his own brother.x 22  I will bring my judgment against him* with pestilencey and bloodshed; and I will rain down a torrential downpour and hailstonesz and firea and sulfurb on him and on his troops and on the many peoples with him.c 23  And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’ So Jehovah will be magnified as the true god.... when they attack the Israel of god  - read Gal 6:16. Anointed Christians are the new Israel of god. Hebrews 12:22 "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem."  Jesus is the Anointed one (Messiah) who, during the 1000 years will rule over the earth to restore the original paradise (the original purpose of God).  He will be king and priest. This means that his ransom sacrifice will be applied to all those who are resurrected on earth (earthly part of Jehovah's universal government).  This will include "unrighteous" ones who never knew anything about Christ or Jehovah.   Acts 24:15 " And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrectionk of both the righteous and the unrighteous."l Read Revelation 20:1 -3  This shows that there will be nations on earth that will survive the great tribulation. verse 3: " And he hurled him into the abyssf and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while." After the final test when all humans (as perfect individuals like Adam) will be tested like Adam was, Jesus will hand over the Kingdom back to his father.  1 Cor 15: from 24 "  Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power.e 25  For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.f 26  And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.g 27  For God “subjected all things under his feet.”h But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’i it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.j 28  But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him,k that God may be all things to everyone." l
    • That’s what it all comes down to,,,thanks.
    • The complimentary edamame is cold and unflavored.    Overall a great atmosphere and a great roll 
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.5k
    • Total Posts
      159.8k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,777
    • Most Online
      1,797

    Newest Member
    blady jhvh
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.