ComfortMyPeople

Yes, it would, if it were meant to be taken literally AND if we had evidence that animals were eating carcasses that died of natural causes. But it would also mean an unending list of all the foods eaten. Noah, in his 600 years of life, may have personally eaten hundreds of foods in his 219,000 days of life. And he could have asked Methuselah, who apparently died in the same year as the Flood, about all the foods that he had eaten for the past 969 years. And maybe those jollly good fellers, the Nephilim, had specialized food favorites that Noah needed to bring on board because that, too, would be included in ALL the foods eaten. I am only being ridiculous because it really is ridiculous to think this literally meant that Noah brought ALL foods eaten. 
The likely meaning in context would be that he needed all the foods to fit the diets of all the different animals and whatever the fateful eight ate. And that might mean "dust" for the snakes (Gen 3:14, just kidding) and a year's supply of honey for the two ants, a years supply of leaves for two of the caterpillars/butterflies, dung for the two dung beetles, some blood for the two mosquitoes, eucalyptus for the two koalas, and a Diet of Worms for the two large-mouth bass, and for the two robins, etc., plus two more worms (or 7 of them if worms were considered clean). 
And then again, if we take it literally, "all the foods eaten" could be of a verb tense to mean all the foods that were ultimately eaten while on the ark. Otherwise, not to beat a dead horse, but we're back to an unending variety of foods eaten that might even mean Noah fought off a couple of sword-bearing cherubs guarding some trees in the Garden of Eden, from every sort of tree.

So many topics in this thread (and so many threads in this topic). 
I'd like to tackle just this one piece of your otherwise logical argument. I think you are giving way too much attention to an English translation of this verse rather than the more probable intent of it. But I also think people often give way too much attention to the original meanings of Greek and Hebrew words because it's usually done to support an interpretation based on the least likely possible meanings of the word from its context.
Anyway, I said all that to say that the Bible NEVER says EVERY SORT of food eaten. And even if it had, it need not be interpreted to include food that died accidentally or "of itself." If we needed to focus on the words "every sort" we'd probably have to include, every kind, every species, every cooking method, every uncooked method, salted, unsalted, washed, unwashed, deboned, un-deboned, descaled, scaled, bloody, un-bled. The list would be endless. 
But we don't need that because the Hebrew just says [of] EVERY FOOD not "all KINDS of food" or "all SORTS of food."
And I don't think we should make too much of the word "ALL" here. The Hebrew word is "kol," pronounced "coal" and just means ALL or EVERYTHING. 
-------This next part is interesting to me, but TLDR; -----------
I took several semesters of Hebrew in school, but that doesn't make me an expert. What it did do is help me appreciate that Biblical Hebrew is not usually written in the way people naturally speak. At times, it's too simple --resulting in either understatements or exaggerations-- and we therefore MUST read into it what is only implied.  And at other times, especially Genesis, for example, it's more repetitive than it needs to be, and translations usually ignore this because, for example, our English-hearing ears are not trained to listen like that. The Hebrew is often (unnecessarily) alliterative and poetic even in historical accounts. 
There is a Hebrew professor/archaeologist named Dr. James Tabor who actually has tried to make an English translation that imitates the alliterative and poetic "sound" and "rhythm" of Hebrew through some of these parts.
If you look up Genesis 6:21 with the above in mind, you might even get the impression that the word ALL is actually not really literal but just a poetic way to make a statement with repetition, rhythm, and alliteration. Notice here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/6/21/t_conc_6021
 וְאַתָּה קַח־לְךָ מִכָּל־מַֽאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵֽאָכֵל
v-atah kaht-l-khah m-kol maakhal asher y-ah-khel
There are other ways to say the same thing wthout all the variations of kaht, khah, kol, khal, khel in the same short phrase. So I don't think ALL foods is necessarily literal.
 
 

Ok, i thought about a diode, but I assumed the circuit was completely identified, with no hidden components. Was the diode in the AC taped connection on the primary side of the transformer?
WERE there two conductors in the white wire to the light?

Yeah. Seen it. Experienced it. Reminds me of another source that would go “crickets” when asked tough questions. Once, when suggesting an in-person audience on a narrow subject, the response was “We don’t have an arrangement for that.” Too many people don’t want to answer for themselves on the spot, which they should be willing to do, if they’re convinced they’re right and do not worry about being wrong. But I don’t want to whine. I’m as imperfect as the next man. But, if I’m wrong I want to know it. 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Not saying anything about George specificially, of course, but you will find certain people on forums, including ones who love or need a few 'sock puppets' and, over time, literally 40+ different "handles" are often of the type who will never admit a mistake. I've been on this forum for about 8 years now, and someone ilke George, throughout 40 of his different names never admitted to one mistake during that entire time, and probably made hundreds of them. Someone couldn't even point out a simple typo without seeing his supposed justification for it. I suppose you could get: "I was testing you to see if you were still ignoring me." But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'

I read the book. I don't think he ever mentions any of those meeting minutes, but he already knows and states the gist of the point about Russell having complete authority and final say about any decision, and that the board members, both editorial board and society officers, were basically just a legal formality. They had no real input into any of his decisions. Russell pretty much ran the Society by himself. If others helped, and we know that his wife had plenty of input, he didn't give them any credit publicly. I know we think of Rutherford as the most autocratic in this regard, but Rutherford seemed to allow quite a bit of leeway and input from those around him, even if his was the only name that would be put on the publications for most of his presidency. Russell did this early on too although most of those others who had writing input all left the Watch Tower Society within a few short years.

I realized the book has no appendix where I could search for Rose Ball. I don't have time to search the whole book, but I found quite a lot of information on Schulz's blog:
https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/search?q=rose+ball
Not sure if it mentions the minutes, as I haven't read through everything, but I do know that Schulz won't put pen to paper unless he has written evidence for what he says. But these articles were written mostly by Jerome, not Schulz himself.

(Hebrews 3:7) Therefore, just as the holy spirit says, "Today, if you listen to his voice . . . "
I was using this point about equating the term "the holy spirit says" with the direct use of Heberw Scriptures because it appears that although they used the "holy spirit" quotation as a basis for interpretation, Paul seemed to think they had interpreted it incorrectly. Paul directly opposed the idea that gentiles could be put under any kind of law, except the "law of undeserved kindness" i.e., grace and love. Paul even went so far as to say he learned nothing from this so-called "governing body" in which he included Peter, James, and John. He didn't care who they were, even if they had been angels from heaven. In fact, Paul directly opposes some of the exact wording that came from that meeting in Jerusalem when he uses an exact Greek term from that list in 1 Cor 8 and referred to the topic again in chapter 10:
1
Play (1 Cor 8:1) Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.   1 Cor 10:23-27 All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.e All things are lawful, but not all things build up.f 24  Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.g25  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.”h 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.  

When I first learned about the rabbinic versions of the Noahide Laws --there are several variations, but usually quite similar-- I always wondered why theft and murder were not part of the Genesis vis-a-vis Acts list. They seem pretty important, too, even though 'no bloodshed' could be read into the idea: "abstain from blood."
I think it was because of a compromise that the Jewish Christians would still want to see it as a following of at least the "Gentile-referenced" part of the Mosaic Law. The Greek Scriptures (in Acts, Hebrews) uses the term "the holy spirit says" when referring to accepted Hebrew Scripture, and I think this is why James could say "the holy spirit and we ourselves." Here's why:
It happens that these four terms in particular that the apostles and elders came up with for Gentiles were listed in the exact same order, and already expanded upon, in Leviticus. I found this idea already summarized on another site: https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-four-prohibitions-of-acts-15/
Le.17:1 “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying….”  This was God speaking to Moses, not just Moses’ own words.  Le.17:6-9 “They shall no longer offer their sacrifices to idols, with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute….The man shall be cut off from his people.”  JFB Commentary Le.17:9 “This was a form of idolatry practiced by the Egyptians.”  Prohibition #1 God forbids sacrifices to idols.  (also see “Sacrifices To Idols and Romans 14”.)
Le.17:10-12 “Any man from the house of Israel or aliens sojourning among them who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off. For the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood.”  Prohibition #2 God forbids the consumption of blood.  The heathen thought that drinking another’s blood would gain them the life or power of that other person/animal.
Continuing in Le.17:13-16. “When any native Israelite or alien among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird which may be eaten [NLT is approved for eating], he must drain its blood. When any person eats an animal which dies of natural causes or was torn by beasts, whether he is native or alien, he must wash his clothes and bathe, and remain unclean until evening. But if he doesn’t wash or bathe, he will bear his iniquity.”  Prohibition #3 God forbids eating things strangled/unbled.  No roadkill.
When an animal was snared or was suffocated/strangled and died of itself, its blood coagulated in the meat.  It wasn’t properly bled.  Life and disease are both in the blood.  The slaughter procedure causes the effusion of blood.  Remaining blood may be extracted by washing & salting the meat.  The incidence of diseases from bacteria or parasites is thereby reduced.  Of note, this prohibition applies to clean creatures “which may be eaten”.  Many forbidden unclean creatures/scavengers naturally carry disease-causing micro-organisms and worms.  (for more on this aspect, see “Unclean versus Clean Food”.)
Le.18 identifies sexual acts which are immorality/porneia.  That’s Prohibition #4.  In the Bible, porneia includes: incest (v.6-18); menstrual sex when blood is present, putting her at risk for vaginal infection & cervical cancer & tubal pregnancy (v.19); adultery (v.20); religious harlotry (v.21, ref Le.17:7, 20:5); homosexuality & lesbianism (Le.18:22, ref Ro.1:26); beastiality (Le.18:23).
All these are forms of illicit sex/porneia/‘fornication’, prohibited to both Jews and gentiles.  Of note: Le.17:8, 10, 15, 18:26 say the four restrictions apply to both Israelites and aliens (ger) with them!
Getting sex any way you want it is prohibited by God in both Testaments.  Jesus said porneia is even just cause for divorce!  Mt.19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia g4202], and marries another wife commits adultery [g3429].”
Although extremely serious, adultery was only one form of sexual immorality.  According to Jesus, all porneia is just cause for divorce.  This includes beastiality, lesbianism, homosexuality, etc.  Some translations render porneia or illicit sex as “fornication”. 
--------------------
So although the basis was undoubtedly the fact that Noahide Laws were already a "thing" to cover the communion between Jews and "law-abiding" Gentiles, James and others were able to make use of a version of them that was in a portion of Scripture (holy spirit) that already included references and laws for the Gentiles (alien residents). For me, it's the best explanation for why murder isn't explicitly on the list. Also, it means that James and others were making use of a form of Bible commentary, a unique form of "pesher" which shows up elsewhere in scripture, especially obvious in Matthew. (In Matthew we sometimes wonder why the book uses verses that appear to be completely out of context to make application to Jesus, as if they were Messianic prohecies. But the special patterns of "pesher" commentary will explain this very well. Although that's another topic for later. The patterns of "pesher" commentary were not well known until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, btw.

The Watchtoewr's publications including those promoted and distributed by the Watchtower Society have always presented the opposite view. And I don't think they would have any reason to lie about this. See "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" published by the WTBTS and Russell's funeral address by Rutherford, and "Fatih on the March" by A H MacMillan but promoted and distributed by the WTBTS. Also see Russell's own statements about how he would make all decisions by himself and that the board would not come into play at all until and unless Russell died.
The view from the Watchtower has been that it was only the President of the Society who made all decisions and that the board was just a legal formality. Russell WAS the Society, as claimed in Watchtower publcations. It sounds like you are saying the Watchtower wasn't telling the truth when they made this claim. Do you have any evidence against the Watchtower's claims?

The 1975 fiasco, which diminished Franz's then near ironclad hold on doctrine, and Knorr's death, left governance of the society vulnerable to other forces.

It's the current style governing body he was against. If you listen to his talk carefully you see that he was against any kind of governing body that took any part of the final decision-making away from the President of the Watchtower Society. That's the way it had always been, under Russell, Rutherord and Knorr, even though Franz himself had provided the strongest direction for doctrinal matters mostly behind the scenes. But it was behind the scenes only to most of us 'rank and file' Witnesses. But for decades, it was clear as day to those around him in Bethel that only he had the final say on anything doctrinal right up until some of his perceived failures respecting predictions surrounding 1975. And they already knew that Knorr was dying of cancer.

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

I hope I didnt offend..I tend to write short and to the point….you and Tom and Juan tend to write long flowing posts with many intellectual words….we Australians just dont see the point in all of that.( I think we are wrong but that’s the truth as I see it ) 
I have tried hard to change but…what the heck….too tired and late to change now.
Brother Splane   was at our 2019 assembly ( the best ever ) and he made a long comment saying….you Australians need to watch how you speak, you come over as blunt and sarcastic…he said more but that’s all I remember ..I wondered what had been said to him by the branch.
I will go over your reply but I dont get your Cornealius point ….as I understand it he was Roman..and never under the Jewish system…therefore a follower of Christ .

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

I appreciate that information. I've still heard it in a talk too, but I don't recall if it is any any of the latest outlines. I remember some bros in correspondence like Bro Malone and Bro Pritchard. I can't imagine their reaction to a memo that would say please don't quote any publications before a certain date unless you adjust the wording to such-and-such. It would have given away the "deceptive" use of the quotes when there was already an argument brewing over these statements in the early 80s in writing. I got the feeling that Service & Correspondence wasn't privy to all the arguing going on in writing.
I was nearby when I heard commotion that turned out to be Brother Greenlees yelling and throwing (slamming) a new summer convention publication down on the desk of one of the writers in an office shared by Bro Lengtat and Bro Napolitano. It wasn't specifically about this particular issue, but was partly over the fact that the publication didn't highlight the true importance of 1914 nor the visible Organization. The anger was also over the fact that none of the publications for that summer made these most important points and the fear (I think) that some might get the impression it was left out on purpose.  
I think that Service/Correspondence was mostly oblivious to these kinds of arguments. I don't know that for a fact, but there was a good amount of interaction between brothers in Writing, but I rarely heard about much face-to-face interaction between Writing and Correspondence except through question memos and then memos responding with "guidance" outlines. One brother, Pritchard, I think, said that he started out using the files to merely copy the previous letter on the topic, but that only someone else would send a memo request for updated guidance. I'm guessing that if there was a letter in the file on the topic, it could go back decades.
I have a feeling you know more about this process, so I'm hoping you'll clarify if you know.

Many Miles I am genuinely with hand on my heart so sorry for your pain. no words will extinguish the guilt you feel….personally I do not see that you should think you have any..
I dont know how many babies you lost in this way..or why this happened.
in my books the blood issue needs to be respected…and you helped some parents when they needed that.You were a pillar of strength. It’s a massive emotional and spiritual burden to take on and you did it in good faith at the time.
I dont know your story thus why you no longer have the same belief as us anymore concerning it.
I sighed loudly when I read your post and thought…what has he been thru.
I have been on line for..oh well…ever so long …and heard many sad stories and I can honestly say…my story has been the saddest of all I have read…..I too wish I could turn back the clock and avoid what lay ahead…but alas..it has only been the internet that uncovered many things for me……………..and Franz’s book made me stronger….NOT weaker in our faith.
Dont let the King Sauls and Korah’s or the JUDAS LIKE brothers force you out.
I hope you find a little scrap of peace brother. I’m barely hanging on but soon this will all be over with and I don’t want to be known by Jehovah for hurting my brothers and sisters……….I write this with much grief xx
 

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant
A accredited medical person must start the delivery and stay by their side taking all their observations every ten minutes for an hour…then every 15 minutes then every half hour …then hourly.
I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…
If everyone understood as to who gave their blood and the incredible amount of parasites and bacteria that are not screened for you wouldn’t ever want one.A Erica s should be especially wary of this, your screening is terrible as are your sources of blood.
Jehovah claims the blood and we need to respect the PRINCIPLE  behind it.
He is not fanatical..he knows we consume cooked blood in even the bled meat..but it is honoring him to pour it out onto the land thus giving it back to him,
It’s such a simple thing to understand …It’s the principle We need to observe……he even forgave those who did not follow his instructions as in King David’s account ….thus persons can and should be forgiven if they are sorry for having a transfusion.. 
 As to fractions..every vaccine and anti venom from snake bite etc has fractions in them.
JWs have the right understanding ..like it or not….as to wether it should be a conscience matter…well I considered that seriously for some time but then that would make fornication  and idol worship a conscience matter…so I had to step back from that reasoning…..
You all do as you want..no skin of my nose…

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.
From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

Yes. What JW Insider points out is something known to me as well. I've had those discussion with decision-makers inside Bethel. Aside from that, there are persons who need what they think they have, even though what they have may not be what they think. At their age, I'd not bother them with something that could shake their world. But, on the other hand, we can't let those who may be weak keep us from sharing things for sake of learning and growing. Otherwise learning is stifled, which is never a good thing.
I've shared some views in this discussion. Whether others agree with them or not is of no concern to me, except to say if those views are wrong I want to know. But I'd look for logical refutation; not just statements of disagreement. I have no fear of being wrong. Again, if I'm wrong I want to know it. My faith is firmly planted, and it's not planted in trust of any men or group of men.

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
 
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 
 
Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
 
Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)
To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

…