Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[George88]

It seems that you are implying that you do not adhere to the Jewish law of soaking (washing) and salting meat to remove the blood. While the phrase "remove as much blood as possible" in the illustration may suggest that the blood is not completely removed, and pressing the meat would have a similar effect, if not less blood removed.

https://www.kosherline.com/koshering-meat/

https://www.exploringjudaism.org/every-day/kashrut/kosher-meat-and-slaughter/soaking-and-salting-kosher-meat/

What does it say about your argument against synthetic blood if common sense tells us that the same principle applies when comparing the amount of cow blood used in the process versus the amount of blood found in meat? A plausible explanation why carrion would not have been included in the ark as asserted.

[Pudgy]

My argument against  Synthetic Human Blood is two fold:

1.) it’s REALLY COWS’  BLOOD.

2.) It’s NOT synthetic human blood, it really REALLY  is …. REAL BLOOD.

Filtering it and adding supplements does not magically eliminated that fact..

——————————————-/—————-

Somebody, somewhere, at some time may have occasionally eaten carrion … partially decayed meat … but as a staple, it is a statistical impossibility.

When in the news, someone eats roadkill … IT’S NEWS!

[George88]

It is a positive development that you have come to the realization that synthetic blood is not at all similar to fractured human blood, much like how eating meat does not involve consuming actual blood. While there might be obscure debates about the possibility of cannibalism (eating spoiled meat) between the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and before Noah's entry into the Ark, it is highly improbable and most certainly not relevant to the discussion regarding the inside of the Ark.

[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.

 

 

[George88]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

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. 

[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.