Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[Many Miles]

Here's a lesson in logic:

Premise 1: Adam is given vegetation to eat.

Premise 2: Adam eats vegetation.

Conclusion: Adam is prohibited from eating biological fat.

Question: Based on the premises offered, is the conclusion of this argument valid or invalid?

 

[George88]

14 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So you reject the biblical assertion that we should accept God's testimony of Himself through His creation? (Ref Ps 19; Rom 1:20) I don't. Which means I don't find it conjecture to listen to and accept the testimony of God's creation all around us.

I disagree with your misuse of scripture to support an argument that cannot be connected to your ideology.

16 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I've offered testable evidence. My argument is falsifiable. But you've not refuted it. You just don't like where it leads.

You can continue to convince yourself of that notion, yet its true significance remains unclear unless supported by tangible evidence.

17 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Of course I don't possess "the ultimate authority here". That's a distracting red herring, which is fallacy.

Your statement is inaccurate and influenced by your personal perspective.

18 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

What's I've done it present an argument logical in form, the premises of which are solidly evidenced by biblical text. The argument is falsifiable, only you haven't refuted a single piece of it as false.

The argument remains, and it is here waiting for refutation:

Wrong again.

Consider the importance of the instructions God gave to Moses in Leviticus 11 regarding what to eat and what not to eat. These guidelines were given to Moses by God, who had foreknowledge of the flood and its consequences. Therefore, it can be inferred that these dietary restrictions would have been applicable even before the flood. It is irrelevant whether or not, humanity adhered to these conditions at that time before the flood, as humans have always had a tendency to reject God's commandments. Similarly, in present times, some Christians refuse to accept certain spiritual teachings even when they are derived from God Himself. Just as the Jews despised God's prophets, these individuals may despise the messenger, but the truth should not be disregarded.

You disregard these crucial considerations and other biblical texts that disprove your unfounded speculation.

[George88]

16 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Here's a lesson in logic:

Premise 1: Adam is given vegetation to eat.

Premise 2: Adam eats vegetation.

Conclusion: Adam is prohibited from eating biological fat.

Question: Based on the premises offered, is the conclusion of this argument valid or invalid?

Where did you and your friend come up with this great idea?

Firstly, let me address the misconception regarding why Adam would be prohibited from consuming animal fat while meat consumption was not established until after the flood. This particular point seems to be a red herring, a term often used by members of the closed club.

Your posts consistently contradict themselves.

[Many Miles]

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

I disagree with your misuse of scripture to support an argument that cannot be connected to your ideology.

Asserting I've misused scripture is not evidence I've misused scripture. All you've offered here is an unevidenced assertion. That's called opinion. Opinion is not refutation.

 

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

Consider the importance of the instructions God gave to Moses in Leviticus 11 regarding what to eat and what not to eat. These guidelines were given to Moses by God, who had foreknowledge of the flood and its consequences. Therefore, it can be inferred that these dietary restrictions would have been applicable even before the flood. It is irrelevant whether or not, humanity adhered to these conditions at that time before the flood, as humans have always had a tendency to reject God's commandments. Similarly, in present times, some Christians refuse to accept certain spiritual teachings even when they are derived from God Himself. Just as the Jews despised God's prophets, these individuals may despise the messenger, but the truth should not be disregarded.

This asserts that post-flood text of the Law of Moses suggests what pre-flood  humans could have eaten. If that's your position then you are forced to accept that the text of Deut 14:21 provides explicit permission for non-Jewish descendants of Noah (like Job, Elihu and Cornelius) to freely eat the flesh of animals dead of natural cause.

 

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

You disregard these crucial considerations and other biblical texts that disprove your unfounded speculation.

Laughably, your assertion above proves my argument is true. (i.e., Deut 14:21 et al.)

The argument I've made remains, and it's here waiting for refutation:

 

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, George88 said:

Where did you and your friend come up with this great idea?

Firstly, let me address the misconception regarding why Adam would be prohibited from consuming animal fat while meat consumption was not established until after the flood. This particular point seems to be a red herring, a term often used by members of the closed club.

Your posts consistently contradict themselves.

What I presented was not an idea. It was a question.

If you want to answer the ACTUAL question asked, here it is:

[George88]

19 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Asserting I've misused scripture is not evidence I've misused scripture. All you've offered here is an unevidenced assertion. That's called opinion. Opinion is not refutation.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

What I presented was not an idea. It was a question.

If you want to answer the ACTUAL question asked, here it is:

Once again, it seems that you have failed to grasp the essence of my post. I did not mention the question that was asked, but rather intended to challenge your perception of fat. In the realm of rational thought, considering fat in your notion would only be plausible after the flood. However, your conflicting statements make it increasingly difficult for me to understand and make sense of your arguments.

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, George88 said:

I did not mention the question that was asked, but rather intended to challenge your perception of fat. In the realm of rational thought, considering fat in your notion would only be plausible after the flood.

Please speak plainly. As you understand the Bible, could pre-flood humans eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

[George88]

1 minute ago, Many Miles said:

Please speak plainly. As you understand that Bible, could pre-flood humans eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

I would like a direct answer to my question. Do you have firsthand knowledge if people actually consumed spoiled meat, carcasses of animals that died naturally, blood, animal fat, or similar things? Please respond with a simple YES or NO. I'm not talking about your biased viewpoint or ideology that stems from your opinion rather than being rooted in a genuine understanding of bible text and its context, especially when your application of understanding is in relation to the aftermath of the flood.

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

I would like a direct answer to my question. Do you have firsthand knowledge if people actually consumed spoiled meat, carcasses of animals that died naturally, blood, animal fat, or similar things? Please respond with a simple YES or NO. I'm not talking about your biased viewpoint or ideology that stems from your opinion rather than being rooted in a genuine understanding of bible text and its context, especially when your application of understanding is in relation to the aftermath of the flood.

I wasn't alive pre-flood. So there is no way I could possibly have firsthand knowledge of what anyone ate pre-flood. So my direct answer to what you ACTUALLY ask is NO.

I only have indirect knowledge deduced logically from what the Bible actually says.

Now you can answer my question:

As you understand that Bible, could pre-flood humans eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

[George88]

21 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I wasn't alive pre-flood. So there is no way I could possibly have firsthand knowledge of what anyone ate pre-flood. So my direct answer to what you ACTUALLY ask is NO.

I only have indirect knowledge deduced logically from what the Bible actually says.

Now you can answer my question:

As you understand that Bible, could pre-flood humans eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

If you initially respond "no" to a rhetorical question, it becomes puzzling how "yes" can be applicable in both instances, considering they occur before the flood. Since we can only rely on post-flood knowledge, and you mentioned that none of us possess firsthand information, it is unclear how the answer could be both YES and NO in these cases.

[George88]

I'm logging out, as I am truly captivated by the happenings in Pickens County and the allure of Summerville in Dorchester County.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

If you initially respond "no" to a rhetorical question, it becomes puzzling how "yes" can be applicable in both instances, considering they occur before the flood. Since we can only rely on post-flood knowledge, and you mentioned that none of us possess firsthand information, it is unclear how the answer could be both YES and NO in these cases.

A person can lack firsthand knowledge yet still be able to make a valid logical deduction. You asked if I had firsthand knowledge of something. My answer to that question is no, because I wasn't there. But despite not being there for firsthand knowledge, if enough information is available I can make a logical deduction of that same something that I don't have firsthand knowledge of.

Now you can answer my question:

As you understand that Bible, could pre-flood humans eat biological fat?  YES or NO?