Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[George88]

3 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

It is quite obvious to me why he will not answer the question about milk. His arguments are always based on fallacious premises they have no standing in reality, and it’s very simple to pull the pin And have the entire chain of logic unravel.

Could it be that you and the other person are actually one and the same? Instead of asking the question, why not provide an answer yourself, Mr. Pudgy?

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

You can easily deduce the answer to your question based on your own actions and behavior. While the question may appear to be straightforward, it is within your capabilities to find the simple answer through common sense. However, the complexity arises when considering the concept of "nursing" in the context of other women nursing children who are not their own. In this spiritual sense, your seemingly simple question becomes more intricate and profound.

It is highly unlikely to question Eve's capability to breastfeed. It is highly probable that, after Seth's birth, other women nursed children over time.

Was there any spiritual nourishment provided to the early settlers, like the milk of God that the first parents had rejected due to disobedience? 

Even a dog without education could provide answers to these questions.

Just to be clear, George, I understand by what you write above to that you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

Is my understanding correct on that matter?

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

Could it be that you and the other person are actually one and the same? Instead of asking the question, why not provide an answer yourself, Mr. Pudgy?

LOL. If you suspect Pudby and I are one and the same then you'd recognize I've already given my answer to the question of pre-flood humans eating milk way, way back near the beginning of this discussion! The question was presented to you so see if you knew the answer, or would answer it if you do.

[George88]

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

LOL. If you suspect Pudby and I are one and the same then you'd recognize I've already given my answer to the question of pre-flood humans eating milk way, way back near the beginning of this discussion! The question was presented to you so see if you knew the answer, or would answer it if you do.

Indeed, it is unfortunate to observe that ignorance prevails among certain individuals, overpowering their ability to reason.

[George88]

13 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Just to be clear, George, I understand by what you write above to that you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

Is my understanding correct on that matter?

Once again, it appears that intelligence eludes you. How do you manage to equate a mother's breast with spiritual nourishment?

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

Indeed, it is unfortunate to observe that ignorance prevails among certain individuals, overpowering their ability to reason.

So does this  mean that of your response above means you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

 

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

How do you manage to equate a mother's breast with spiritual nourishment?

I have nowhere equated a mother's breast milk with spiritual nourishment.

I request whether your response above means you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

[George88]

23 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So does this  mean that of your response above means you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

 

22 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I have nowhere equated a mother's breast milk with spiritual nourishment.

 

40 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

(To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

If you insist on rejecting my words, then I must likewise reject your interpretation of logic through the use of scripture. I will refer to Tim. 6:4, 2 Tim. 2:14 in order to invalidate your stance. You may choose to imitate Pudgy, JWinsider, or anyone else for that matter, but it does not change the fact that your argument lacks credibility.

[Matthew9969]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:21 PM, Pudgy said:

Fresh carrion: This is the initial stage of decomposition, where the body is newly deceased, and minimal decay has occurred. The flesh may still appear relatively intact

At this point its best to turn it into carrion luggage.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

At this point its best to turn it into carrion luggage.

Lest we forget, the first set of outerwear God provided humans was said to be "skins". Presumably, of an animal that was dead before the skin was removed to serve as clothing.

[George88]

From my perspective, it appears that there are numerous misunderstandings regarding the definition.

car·ri·on

[ˈkerēən]

 

NOUN

1. the decaying flesh of dead animals: 

    

   Animal fur (skins) are after the animal is skinned by humans. What implications does this have for fallacy, logic, and interpretation? When it comes to animals, skinning is a whole different story.

[Many Miles]

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

From my perspective, it appears that there are numerous misunderstandings regarding the definition.

car·ri·on

[ˈkerēən]

 

NOUN

1. the decaying flesh of dead animals: 

    

   Animal fur (skins) are after the animal is skinned by humans. What implications does this have for fallacy, logic, and interpretation? When it comes to animals, skinning is a whole different story.

It's good to define terms for sake of a discussion.

From my part, what I've been speaking of is dead carcasses that when alive were animals. From there, for the most part, my use of "carrion" was shorthand for those dead carcasses.

- It still remains the case that dead carcasses were a sort of food eaten prior to the flood.

- It also still remains the case that Noah was told to put some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals.