Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[Pudgy]

…

[Many Miles]

Logical scriptural argument:

- If animals dead of natural cause was a kind of food eaten prior to the flood, and Noah was told to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark as food for himself and the animals,

- Then animals dead of natural cause was stowed on the ark as food to be eaten by the human and animal passengers.

- Animals dead of natural cause was a kind of food eaten prior to the flood. “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 , and Ps. 19:1. Deut 14:21)

- Noah was told to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark as food for himself and the animals. 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 )

- Noah brought animals dead of natural cause onto the ark as food for himself and the animals.

So far I've seen nothing refuting this conclusion. Just blather, dodging and weaving is all I've seen.

We must take care not to transpose our personal societal norm with how ancient people survived, including what they ate for food. Nature tells us that animals dead of natural cause has always been a sort of food eaten, hence this was part of what Noah was instructed to take onto the ark as food for himself and animals. The Bible says  he did just saw.

 

 

[Many Miles]

7 minutes ago, George88 said:

The absence of presented evidence through distorted views, speculations, and neglecting to adhere to other scriptural texts also applies to the person making the claims. 

The above argument is modus ponens. (Look it up!) This form of argument is valid, which leads us to the premises found within it.

The above argument contains two premises.

Premise 1: Animals dead of natural cause was a kind of food eaten prior to the flood.

Premise 2: Noah was told to bring some of every kind of food eaten onto the ark as food for himself and the animals.

Either these premises are true, or they are false. Which of the above premises is false, and why.

I've already presented evidence they are true.

Evidence for premise 1: Creation teaches us that animals dead of natural cause are a kind of food eaten, something the governing body agrees with.

Evidence for premise 2: The text of Genesis 6:21 read literally for what it says.

 

[Many Miles]

Here's another instance where the governing body recognizes the place that scavenge eating contributes to earth's ecosystem:

"How important are crocodiles to our environment? They are scavengers, clearing the rivers and lakes, as well as nearby land areas, of dead fish and animals. This helps keep the water system clean. As predators, they target weak, injured, and sickly creatures. They eat fish, such as the destructive catfish, which feed on carp and tilapia, major commercial catches for human consumption." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102005165 )

 

[Many Miles]

A man who sees an animal die of itself (think Deut 14:21), and he's going go use the carcass as food, which he should since its perfectly good for eating:

 

[Many Miles]

Men scavenging meat from lions:

 

[Pudgy]

I want you to look back on your own personal life, for as long as you have lived, and also look back to all the friends you have ever known, all inclusive.

Add to that to everybody you’ve ever passed on the sidewalk going to and from anywhere.  

From your personal experience, added to the personal experience of everyone you have ever met, how many people in total have ever gone to the grocery store or by any other means purchased Carrion?

Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.

….. Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.

ZERO?

… and that is the only point worth making. All else is manufactured stretch.…. and that’s the fact, Jack!

 

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I want you to look back on your own personal life, for as long as you have lived, and also look back to all the friends you have ever known, all inclusive.

Add to that to everybody you’ve ever passed on the sidewalk going to and from anywhere.  

From your personal experience, added to the personal experience of everyone you have ever met, how many people in total have ever gone to the grocery store or by any other means purchased Carrion?

Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.

….. Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.

ZERO?

… and that is the only point worth making. All else is manufactured stretch.…. and that’s the fact, Jack!

 

I've eaten this sort of food myself. In my life in an agrarian society, a lot of my family and friends have. If we happen upon a perfectly good carcass that is edible, why would anyone who knows what to do with it pass it up as food, unless you didn't have time to harvest it? I could go hunt a deer for its meat, but if I happen upon a deer dead of natural cause that's perfectly edible (which I have) I'm not just going to leave it for coyotes. That meat's going in my pantry! Where I live, if a deer is found on the side of the road (which may or may not have been hit by a passing automobile) it's not out of the ordinary for a resident in the neighborhood to harvest that carcass for food.

So, the answer is not ZERO, which happens to be a fact, JACK.

You don't even know how to analyze a logical argument for purposes of refutation.

[Pudgy]

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

Yes, and yes.

And, I'm glad you have opinion, even though it happens to be complete nonsense.

If you want to refute the argument I've put forth then go here:

And, please do your best to apply conventions of logical constructs in your attempt at refutation. Cartoons won't work for that.

[Pudgy]

28 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

So you eat dead carcasses that have not been bled out? And put them in your pantry?

I think your entire account you just gave is a total fantasy, and a bald faced lie.

period.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

period.

Impressive. You know how to spell period. Apparently you have no refutation of the argument put forth. Fine.