Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[George88]

54 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Is it possible that the Nephilim practiced cannibalism? Perhaps humans imitated this behavior with other humans or even animals before the understanding of fire. However, I highly doubt that such behavior or attitude would have been allowed onto God's Ark. I believe that the idea behind God's intention was to eliminate all forms of evil from humanity, including any brutal or animalistic tendencies inherited from the animal kingdom. It is important to remember that the story of Noah's Ark is centered around God's plan to preserve a righteous remnant and rid the world of wickedness. The flood was intended to cleanse the earth of evil and start afresh with Noah and his family, who were deemed righteous by God. The purpose was to preserve a new, morally upright generation. 

If carrion had been part of that scenario, those specific animals would have continued their instinctual behavior inside the Ark. Although the Bible doesn't provide this specific account, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on such details. 

I just want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that you asked the question. Instead, I'm emphasizing that the notion of deteriorating meat can be influenced by multiple factors, not just a single one.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Is it possible that the Nephilim practiced cannibalism?

Possibilities don't make for very good premises. Possibilities are endless. For premises used in a logical scriptural argument, we should stick to what we have evidence of.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Perhaps humans imitated this behavior with other humans or even animals before the understanding of fire. However, I highly doubt that such behavior or attitude would have been allowed onto God's Ark. I believe that the idea behind God's intention was to eliminate all forms of evil from humanity, including any brutal or animalistic tendencies inherited from the animal kingdom. It is important to remember that the story of Noah's Ark is centered around God's plan to preserve a righteous remnant and rid the world of wickedness. The flood was intended to cleanse the earth of evil and start afresh with Noah and his family, who were deemed righteous by God. The purpose was to preserve a new, morally upright generation. 

If carrion had been part of that scenario, those specific animals would have continued their instinctual behavior inside the Ark. Although the Bible doesn't provide this specific account, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on such details. 

I just want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that you asked the question. Instead, I'm emphasizing that the notion of deteriorating meat can be influenced by multiple factors, not just a single one.

God has, to my knowledge, never had aversion of humans eating meat of animals as though doing so was wrong or contrary to His will.

This discussion is addressing pre-flood food.

God told Noah to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals. That's God's word. Not mine. If you want to challenge God's word feel free. But it's His words you'd be challenging. Not mine.

If we accept God's word for what it says, then, as the Bible goes onto say in the very next sentence, "Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so." (Gen 6:21)

We know animal carcasses dead of natural cause were a sort of food eaten, both prior to and after the flood. After the flood God held no aversion to non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating this very sort of food. So men like Elihu, Job and Cornelius were free to eat this sort of food. God even arranged that this sort of food could be purchased from a Jew specifically to use it as food eat it. (Deut 14:21)

Hence:

- 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.

[Pudgy]

Pay attention, as there will be a test later involving the nautical term “Keelhaul”.

If you are in charge of provisions on a trans-Atlantic voyage from Ireland to the Americas in an old wooden sailing ship … a trip that could take a month or two … and the Captain says take all kinds of food on board … the decks and cargo holds will be filled with dozens or hundreds of cages with live animals as well as food for them, and great wooden casks of drinking water.

There was no refrigeration back then, so as the trip went along, the animals …. chickens, turtles, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and more would be slaughtered as needed for food.  

Even better than vegetables that start dying when they are separated from the plant.

They were not thought of as cargo, because they were never intended to reach shore.

You could have 532 different live animals on board, CATAGORIZED AS “FOOD”.

I have read they even used to do this on warships. I have seen this in several movies.

The Bible DOES NOT SAY that there was carrion on the Ark, and there is no need to make that up … unless of course you have a runaway imagination and are trying to enhance something you said previously that you realize later makes no sense at all.

[George88]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Possibilities don't make for very good premises. Possibilities are endless. For premises used in a logical scriptural argument, we should stick to what we have evidence of.

Assumptions about carrion on the ark hold no validity. Forming opinions based on unfounded conjecture is equally flawed, regardless of one's intellect.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

God told Noah to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals. That's God's word. Not mine.

The term "carrion" does not belong to God. Let's be absolutely clear that your assumption is merely an unfounded speculation, and the word comes from you in that respect of the ark.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

If we accept God's word for what it says, then, as the Bible goes onto say in the very next sentence, "Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so." (Gen 6:21)

It would truly be praiseworthy if we refrain from speculating about the specific type of food intended for Noah and the animals during their voyage, instead relying on the guidance provided in other texts. This approach allows us to make an informed judgment based on solid evidence, rather than mere speculation.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Hence:

- 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.

Indeed, your speculation is simply supported by one person, not scripture.

[Pudgy]

6 hours 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?

It is a waste to explain the obvious to the clueless.

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

It is a waste to explain the obvious to the clueless.

100%

[Pudgy]

27 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Pay attention, as there will be a test later involving the nautical term “Keelhaul”.

If you are in charge of provisions on a trans-Atlantic voyage from Ireland to the Americas in an old wooden sailing ship … a trip that could take a month or two … and the Captain says take all kinds of food on board … the decks and cargo holds will be filled with dozens or hundreds of cages with live animals as well as food for them, and great wooden casks of drinking water.

There was no refrigeration back then, so as the trip went along, the animals …. chickens, turtles, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and more would be slaughtered as needed for food.  

Even better than vegetables that start dying when they are separated from the plant.

They were not thought of as cargo, because they were never intended to reach shore.

You could have 532 different live animals on board, CATAGORIZED AS “FOOD”.

I have read they even used to do this on warships. I have seen this in several movies.

The Bible DOES NOT SAY that there was carrion on the Ark, and there is no need to make that up … unless of course you have a runaway imagination and are trying to enhance something you said previously that you realize later makes no sense at all.

Amazing. Terrific! Wonderful insight!

How can you BE so friggin’ smart?

Oh … you read a lot of history?

….. well, ok then …..

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Pay attention, as there will be a test later involving the nautical term “Keelhaul”.

If you are in charge of provisions on a trans-Atlantic voyage from Ireland to the Americas in an old wooden sailing ship … a trip that could take a month or two … and the Captain says take all kinds of food on board … the decks and cargo holds will be filled with dozens or hundreds of cages with live animals as well as food for them, and great wooden casks of drinking water.

There was no refrigeration back then, so as the trip went along, the animals …. chickens, turtles, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and more would be slaughtered as needed for food.  

Even better than vegetables that start dying when they are separated from the plant.

They were not thought of as cargo, because they were never intended to reach shore.

You could have 532 different live animals on board, CATAGORIZED AS “FOOD”.

I have read they even used to do this on warships. I have seen this in several movies.

The Bible DOES NOT SAY that there was carrion on the Ark, and there is no need to make that up … unless of course you have a runaway imagination and are trying to enhance something you said previously that you realize later makes no sense at all.

Strictly from a logical perspective, and using biblical text for premises, a problem occurs with an assertion that some of the animals put onto the ark might be (or were) used as food because, according to biblical text, Noah was instructed to keep alive the animals taken onto the ark. If we accept that at face value, then of the animals Noah was told to preserve alive, he couldn't use them as food. But nothing in this language precludes animal meat that was preserved and stowed as food. This is why my argument on this thread has focused on animal flesh other than that of live animals taken onto the ark "just so". Also, by carrion, I'm not speaking solely of putrefied remains inedible for human consumption and nutrition. That might work for animals like vultures, but not necessarily for humans.

[Pudgy]

Jehovah to Noah to stock the Ark with food of every sort. If Noah took an outrigger canoe to an island 300 miles away it would be logical to take caged or leashed animals with him. The Pacific Islanders do this, even  making a cooking fire in the boat ( on rocks or sand or dirt I suppose ?)

Jehovah delegated food supplies to Noah’s best judgement.

Does best judgement include partially decayed meat?  No.

How about a nice, fresh chicken?  Yay!

Of course, I have already explained WHY God told Noah to provide over three times  more unclean animals than clean animals.

Noah provided the food at his discretion. JEHOVAH PROVIDED THE DELIVERABLE ANIMALS.

Use your common sense, experience, and reading to decide what is probable, and what is improbable.

Fer cryin out loud …. when is the last time you scraped a flattened sun baked squirrel off the asphalt and took it home and ate it?

[Many Miles]

9 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Jehovah to Noah to stock the Ark with food of every sort. If Noah took an outrigger canoe to an island 300 miles away it would be logical to take caged or leashed animals with him. The Pacific Islanders do this, even  making a cooking fire in the boat ( on rocks or sand or dirt I suppose ?)

Jehovah delegated food supplies to Noah’s best judgement.

Does best judgement include partially decayed meat?  No.

How about a nice, fresh chicken?  Yay!

Of course, I have already explained WHY God told Noah to provide over three times  more unclean animals than clean animals.

Noah provided the food at his discretion. JEHOVAH PROVIDED THE DELIVERABLE ANIMALS.

Use your common sense, experience, and reading to decide what is probable, and what is improbable.

Fer cryin out loud …. when is the last time you scraped a flattened sun baked squirrel off the asphalt and took it home and ate it?

Since we have biblical text saying creation testifies as God's word (Ps 19:1), and since there is evidence in creation that some animals are predatory by design, then it is scripturally arguable that Noah took some live animals onto the ark as food in addition to the ones he was obligated to preserve alive. I'll leave that argument for you. So long as the argument you put forth is logical in form, and so long as each premise is well-evidenced, you'll see no objection from me.

PS: Among predatory animals, the strongest argument might be based on obligate carnivores.

[Pudgy]

Don’t fall into the same trap as the WTB&TS does when they change the definitions of words to convince the rubes that they were always right.

 

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Don’t fall into the same trap as the WTB&TS does when they change the definitions of words to convince the rubes that they were always right.

 

 

Pudgy, it is absurd that JW leadership claims JWs abstain from blood. JWs gobble up blood products by the drum loads all around the world. According to JW policy, JWs can undergo plasma exchange by accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma. When this exchange is done, more than half the patient's circulating blood has been replaced by someone who donated blood, or at least plasma. A single patient could undergo this treatment daily for weeks. That is a massive about of product taken from the donor blood supply. Like I am with most any subject, I take time to research rather than just trusting someone else to tell me what I'm supposed to believe. Everyone should subject their views, and what they are taught, to critical analysis to  make sure what they believe and what they are taught is sound.