Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[Pudgy]

When a fantasy and a bald faced lie is presented as an “arguement”, it stands alone.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

When a fantasy an a bald faced lie is presented as an “arguement”, it stands alone.

Three things:

1) Your statement that I've lied is an assertion. The burden of proof for any assertion is born solely by the person making the assertion, which in this case is you. So, where's your evidence that I've lied? Where?

2) And, please read this slowly, saying something is not true does not make that something not true. Please read that again.

3) So far you've demonstrated no ability to critique an argument. Guess they didn't teach that in engineering school.

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

You seem to be discussing cultural differences that are not based on scripture. It is important to distinguish between the two. If you have come across situations where dead animals with blood are being consumed, that might be your personal experience. However, it is incorrect to assume that all Christians or individuals from similar cultures automatically engage in activities such as hunting or survivalism. Let us focus on discussing reality without resorting to insults or sarcasm. It seems that certain individuals here, perhaps "pudgy", treat people differently, showing respect to some but not to others.

I don't see it coming from him in your case. What most people usually do is go to the grocery store to purchase meat that still carries traces of blood.

Please take note that the modus ponens argument you cite does, in each of its two premises provide biblical evidence that they are true.

Also, the subject is not about what Christians would do. That's a red herring, which is fallacy. The subject here is pre-flood food.

Finally, what I've presented is as real as it gets. You just don't like what that leads. Alternatively, you could always offer logical refutation.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your reasoning is flawed as it relies solely on present-day logic, without considering the wisdom of pre-flood analogies. Therefore, I believe your uninformed viewpoint to be a fallacy, lacking foundation in scripture and driven by your subjective opinion.

I've provided ancient source material as evidence in support of both premises offered in the argument I put forth. You do agree that the biblical record is a bona fide account of things we should accept as true. Don't you? The text of Ps. 19 tells us to accept God's testimony of creation. Creation tells us that animals dead of themselves is a kind of food eaten since creation. Either you accept God's testimony by His creation, or you do not. Which is it? Genesis 6:21 is a direct, word-for-word, statement made to Noah. These evidences are not mine. These evidences are found in the Bible you say you live by.

So, I've offered no opinion. I've offered testable evidence. My argument is falsifiable. But you've not refuted it. You just don't like where it leads.

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

 

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, George88 said:

All we have for the time frame is conjecture, which means there is no concrete evidence to support it, apart from your personal opinion that it might have occurred. Speculation, being the weakest form of evidence, should be avoided.

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.

 

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your stance is the worst kind of theory when it comes to any situation linked to a scholarly review. Thus, according to biblical principles, it presents a fallacy influenced by bias.

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

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

The argument is solely yours to keep. A wise individual has already reached their conclusions based on concrete evidence, whether you accept it or not. You do not possess the ultimate authority here; evidence and God do.

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

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:

 

[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?

 

[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:

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Many Miles]

While we're waiting for George to return and answer the question asked of him, which is:

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

The argument I've made regarding pre-flood food remains, and it's here waiting for refutation: