Srecko Sostar

We can see what happens now in nature and we can also see quite a lot of fossil evidence that lets us surmise what must have happened in the past. But the Bible often presents a picture that makes very little sense to our knowledge of nature. We can't quite see how plants and all vegetation could come about on day 3 before God made the sun on day 4. And how could many of the plants have lived without interaction with animals like insects and birds on day 5. And when we look at any spoonful of dirt there are currently more species of microbes. And how does enough water to flood the earth stay afloat in the expanse above the heavens, or stay below the surface of the ground until some future day when it's time to flood the earth. We have animals coming to Adam, we have animals easily collected by Noah (and maybe Samson?). And we must also conjecture that Noah took only a few of each "kind" of animal instead of the millions of species, so that we must make up our own mind about what constitutes a "kind" and also believe that intermediate kinds quickly derived new species, in a burst of new evolutionary development. (Even though today many species cannot mate with others, or they create hybrids if they do.) 
I think the Bible intends to explain an ideal beginning that is NOT SUPPOSED to conform to any present understanding of how things, or how they were seen to work in Moses's day, or Ezra's day or whenever some of the Bible books were first penned for us. I said before that there may be a reason that certain things were said and certain things were not said. It was not for us to just assume that anything not specifically forbidden was permitted, just as we could not say that anything specifically permitted meant that all other things were forbidden.
I believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to meat. God made them a garden. Was it a vegetable garden? Did they have to work at cultivating seeds for tomatoes, potatoes, beets, carrots? The first creation account Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 implies Yes. The second creation account that includes Adam and Eve implies No. In that second account, all we have is a reference to fruit trees:
(Genesis 2:8, 9) . . .Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in Eʹden, toward the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9  Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
(Genesis 2:15-17) . . .Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eʹden to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16  Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17  But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it,. . .
 
But the first account appears to be a more general account for all mankind even beyond the Garden of Eden and it technically allows for more than just fruit trees:
(Genesis 1:29, 30) 29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30  And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
So all moving, living creatures could eat green vegetation. 
And when outside the garden, Adam and Eve were gven some new information about ther food supply, which is now expanded beyond fruit trees to cultivated vegetation of the field, including grains (bread):
(Genesis 3:17-19) . . .cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18  It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19  In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
 
At this point, any astute reader would wonder about meat. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about meat? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about it? We see God using animal skins to clothe Adam and Eve after they tried to clothe themselves with green vegetation. Then we see Cain cultivating the ground just as Jehovah said would now be more difficult outside the garden. Then we see Abel slaughtering an animal with it's fat. But still no mention of eating meat. 
Even when Cain is punished, one of the punishments is that the ground will not produce for him. Does he then become a mighty hunter [in opposition to Jehovah like Nimrod]? No, it just means he will now live the life of a fugitive:
(Genesis 4:12) . . .When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its produce. You will become a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth.” 
 
And then we have another mention of livestock:
(Genesis 4:19, 20) Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
 
And a second mention of bloodshed (after Cain/Abel):
(Genesis 4:23) . . .Laʹmech composed these words... A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a young man for striking me.
 
And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about meat!
First, we see Noah slaughtering some clean animals and ALL the clean flying creatures, and he makes burnt offerings, and Jehovah apparently loves the smell.
(Genesis 8:19-21) . . .Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families. 20  Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21  And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma. So Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground on man’s account. . .
And for the first time, Jehovah is shown to say something about man eating meat:
(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4  Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. 5  Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. ... 20  Now Noah started off as a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.
 
@George88 already mentioned the almost inexplicable idea that Jehovah will demand an accounting from every animal, too, not just man. So I included the verse above for that point in case anyone wants to comment about it. Gen 9:5. Perhaps this is related to the later Mosaic laws about keeping your dangerous bull locked up, etc., or else pay the penalty for what it may kill or maim. But as it stands, it appears that Jehovah will demand an accounting of every butterfly, spider, mosquito, dog, cat, bull, dove, elephant, koala, raven, grub, grasshopper, gorilla, giraffe, gerbil, etc. I think it must be more closely related to the later Mosaic principles. We believe that Moses was involved in putting these accounts together and this might also explain why the mention of clean vs unclean animals appears anachronistic. 
It's not part of the original question, but still quite interesting.

I agree that reasonable can and will vary from person to person. In the case of stowing food, opportunity and viability are paramount.
Ancient humans would naturally look for easier and safer forms of nutritional support. It just happens to be the case that using animal carcasses found dead of natural cause is about as easy at it could get for their nutritional support. Of course, the meat would have to be fit to eat. Ancient humans were capable of planning ahead. Hence they could grow crops, and there was wild vegetation too. But these could fail for a variety of unpreventable reasons. Hence both then and now, utilizing alternate (a variety!) sources for food is critical. Aside from vegetation, there is biological meat. If you find it already dead you don't have to expose yourself to injury trying to kill it. But you also need to prepare it for storage for future use. For the ancients, this was no harder than it would have been with botanical foods. Hence, it is reasonable to think Noah would have realized and utilized food options available to him that were easier, safe and effective, so long as they did not run astray of something God had said "No!' to. Which in Noah's pre-flood life was only one food item which was not meat.
As it is with animals, it is with humans. If, for a moment, we take away the lens of biblical and just look at the natural world ancient humans existed in, then the value of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause but whose flesh is fit to eat, as a food item, rises to the occasion. (And don't even get me started on the nutritional value of smaller insect animals like grasshoppers and crickets.) When ancient humans got hungry they ate what was available as nutrition. This certainly is why we find within the biblical text of Deut 14:21 a provision for people to eat animals found dead of natural cause. For people, that was a food item. Also, just ask yourself why God would have told Jews not to eat animals found dead of natural cause, unless it had been a practice for them up until that time? And, the technology available to ancient Jews under Mosaic Law was not much different than millenniums prior to that time. That said, if animal carcasses dead of natural cause was a food item then it Noah had permission to stow it onto the ark as a food to be eaten for himself and the animals. That's the story of Genesis 6:21. If it was an edible Noah could take onto the ark as food for himself and the animals.
But it is specifically mentioned in the more ancient text of Deut 14:21, so we know the practice of humans eating animal carcasses dead of natural cause was happening, and in the case of Deut 14:21 God Himself actually provided this specifically to be eaten by Gentiles. Men like Job and Cornelius were free to eat meat just like that. God made it available specifically to serve as a food item for non-Jews, who by the way were all still descendants of Noah.

Unfortunately, we are only discussing possibilities here. We weren't there, we don't know for sure, and there are no clear Bible verses that tell us the exact details. So none of this makes a very strong foundation or a premise for further argumentation. There are many interesting points to be made about why the Bible does include certain phrases and does not include others, and why the natural world as we see it around us (including ages-old fossils) isn't explained in detail in the Bible itself.
I personally think that what is stated in Acts 15 and 21 need not rely on some specific interpretations and conjectures about natural law, Noahide law or the Mosaic law. The term in Acts is "abstain from blood." It's a good translation, yet it doesn't say only to abstain from eating or drinking it. It just says abstain. That MIGHT have meant only abstain from drinking blood or from eating products made from blood, and it probably was meant to refer in some way back to the Noahide and Mosaic references to blood. But it might even go beyond those, or it might just be a simple command for Gentiles to avoid making it difficult to join in fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers by avoiding blood when fellowshipping with those who would be disgusted by the idea. Paul seems to interpret the Acts 15 idea as not blatantly or flagrantly flaunting the freedoms that Gentile Christians have that those Jewish Christians were not ready to accept. The very idea of eating or even transfusing blood already seems disgusting to many people, even some inside the medical profession. It seems disgusting to most Jehovah's Witnesses who have repeatedly reviewed the Mosaic laws about it and the Acts 15 statement and have also heard so many negative stories about blood transfusion. So imagine how disgusting "taking" blood would seem for those Jewish Christians whose families and ancestors had been steeped in anti-blood doctrine for thousands of years. 
Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says:
(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .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.” 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. 
(1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . 4  Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . 7  However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. 
(1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it.
And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols.
 
For me, that is the starting point. 
 

Whew! 
At least it was not as bad as my memory, confusing “clean animals by sevens” and “unclean animals by twos”. 
Heretofore I was ranting for the opposite case.
Still, the same amount of extra animals to be made into Purina Lion Chow for the voyage though.
My apologies, but in my defense, my brain is 77 years old, and mostly made of fat.
 
 

i’m still trying to figure out how the Penguins got from Antarctica all the way up to Noah’s ark …… 
 

No.
For me, the biblical statement in which God, after the creation (of animal species), claims that everything turned out well and does not put them in the categories of clean and unclean, is sufficient. I guess that includes dinosaurs. lol

But I never saw in the WTJWorg pictures that Noah collected kangaroos. So your photo with the distance in miles and comment is a bit suspicious to me. Many would say, the WTJWorg pictures are more credible than yours.
:)))))))

It's wrongheaded, unsound and outright refuted as wrong. It has no scriptural support whatsoever. None.
The subject of meat products is just one string of many that, when pulled, unravels the very fabric the society has woven its blood doctrine from.
Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether animals were created to live forever and, if not, then what was the created means of returning this flesh to the earth from which it was made?
Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether God's permission for humans and animals to eat vegetation was exhaustive?
Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether the prohibition against eating of the tree of knowledge was the sole food prohibition placed upon earliest humankind?
Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether when God told Noah to gather and take onto the ark every food eaten was Noah given permission to gather from all viable foods that were eaten at the time or not?
Another thread that, when pulled, has the same effect is the question of whether God's words to Noah that "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" was said of all flesh or the flesh of living animals?
Any one of these threads, when pulled, unravels the tapestry of the society's blood doctrine.

It is not for me to introduce "order" into the discussion, but I would be more interested in seeing and determining, by the participants in the discussion, what they conclude about the current JW doctrine on blood.
That seems to me to be more important than the discussion about meat products. Because there will be blood in the meat one way or another and no one will call you to account if you ate more or less blood in the meat. It is interesting to read various arguments about the diet of people from the past, but .....
 
 

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.
 
 

Answering "why" is always difficult, and we may never have a definitively solid answer to the questions posed above.
However, in Journal of Contemporary Religion (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-157) professors Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone co-authored an article titled Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application. Therein they posit a theoretical model of why religious movements succeed to see how well it explains growth amongst JWs. A proposition within this model may offer insight into the "why" question above.
That proposition is:
New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they maintain a medium level of tension with their surrounding environment—are strict, but not too strict.
According to Stark and Iannaccone,
Applied to the Witnesses, the issue is not whether they are sufficiently strict, but whether they aren’t too strict. Their stormy relations with outsiders, especially governments, make it clear that they are in considerable tension with their environment. The very high expectations concerning religious and missionary activity, their unbending pacifism, rejection of flag-saluting and anthem-singing, and their refusal to have blood transfusions all demonstrate considerable “strictness”. On the other hand, the Witnesses are comfortable with much of the general culture. Although they prohibit smoking, they do not prohibit drinking—and most of them do. They have no distinctive dress requirements and female Witnesses do not stint on cosmetics—publishers are expected to be nicely dressed and well-groomed, when they go calling. They do not prohibit going to sporting events, movies, plays, or watching television--although many believe this is a waste of precious time better devoted to missionary work. Consequently, it is impossible to identify a Witness, unless he or she volunteers the information. Visibility may, in fact, be the crucial factor for identifying when groups impose too much tension or strictness. [Underline added for emphasis]
If this is true, there is reason to believe the answer to the "why" question has more to do with growing a religious movement than being rational. If true, this would explain a great deal. It would, for example, explain why, to this day, not a single member of the governing body is willing to openly and publicly engage in a critical analysis of the blood doctrine they stubbornly hold to despite overwhelming evidence the doctrine is not only unsound but outright refuted. It would also explain all the society's demonstrably fallacious responses it offers in its literature addressing the subject. Then we have all the society's online die-hards, who, to the person, fail over and over again to offer any rational reasons supporting their leaders' position. They don't have this rationale because the ones they entrust with their decision-making have not offered them suitable material.
It may end up being the case that the society is running a religion business rather than a moral compass anchored on rational biblical foundation. It pains me to say it, but there it is. I've said it out loud. Of course, those of us like me know we were taught from infancy that the society's religious positions are [soundly] reasoned from the scriptures. Yet, as older, more experienced and educated adults we've learned we do not have sound reasoning that support the society's current religious position on blood. We also learned that insiders tasked to answer for this doctrine (like Fred Rusk) have utterly failed in their attempts. Over and over again they've offered false premises to underpin the doctrine.
This finding may be confirmed by the society's own publications and doctrinal evolution:
The society's own literature demonstrates that since 1945 the JW community consistently objected on sound bases to the notion that it was wrong to teach the scriptures forbid transfusion of donor blood to save life and/or health. Regardless, the society just turned up the heat on this doctrine to the point where it became a matter that could lead to a JW being disfellowshipped (excommunicated).
The doctrinal evolution of this religious position also shows a dial feature related to "personal conscience matters" and what it terms "minor fractions" that have the effect of mitigating harm to JWs whilst maintaining the overall doctrine. Over the years the society has used these doctrinal features to dial up or dial down the tension caused by its blood doctrine, again whilst still maintaining the overall doctrinal position.
The whole thing smacks of business building strategy rather than offering a sound scriptually based moral compass.

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.
With the abundance of archival material available to us, authored/written by the people at WTJWorg, it is possible to see a chronology of doctrine. The text from the publications gives us a certain insight into the personality and condition of those behind the text. Also, by relating it to events inside and outside WTJWorg, we can see more clearly why some things (doctrines, instructions, interpretations) were written in one way (as irrefutable and the pinnacle of true knowledge) and later changed, more or less modified, adapted or completely rejected. And with some doctrines, it happened that they were thrown out for a while and then reintroduced as correct after a certain period of time (the so-called flip-flop).
It is unnecessary to question whether an individual believe or does not believe in God and his ability. That doesn't solve anything. The question must be asked whether we should believe in People who claim that God is speaking contradictory things through them, and that both are true.

I would give answer to the question in the title, "What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?"
We have seen that the WTJWorg interpretations seem to imply that the taking of animal or human blood is unacceptable because they tend to draw that conclusion based on a few passages of the Bible.
Then they subsequently made it clear that blood (and blood products) should not be used for nutritional purposes, but some blood products can be used (allowed) to protect or improve health.
They also inserted into that thesis the vague and inconsistent use of the amount of a certain ingredient in the blood as a measure of acceptable or unacceptable.
Whatever of their logic they want to use as a "biblical argument", we see that they (GB) have ruined the original commandment with their politicization and assumptions. If it is said that blood is not to be used (let's add a sequel-for any purpose except for a religious act) but must be shed on the ground, then it is clear that WTJWorg and GB along with their followers is a violator of that commandment because they doctrinally and literally allow the use of blood (and its parts) for an illegal (non-religious) purpose.
Since GB did not provide a single biblical quote as possible proof that some minor parts (fractions) of blood are allowed to be used by believers, GB falls into the "false teachers" category.
Or, in order not to offend some readers, we can say it like this: Teachers who do not know how to use God's Word correctly. ("...rightly dividing the word of truth” KJV), ("...handling the word of the truth aright. NWT) - 2 Timothy 2:15.

 
 

Esther worked with a "worldly" government.
Mordecai worked with a "worldly" government.
Daniel worked with a "worldly" government.
Nehemiah worked with a "worldly" government.
Joseph worked with a "worldly" government.
 
They had positions of authority in those governments.
 
Is it wrong for witnesses to work with the governments when it is in accord with Jehovah's will?
 
The Bible is clear.
 
Being "no part of the world" is not what they think it means at Bethel.

The government stopped Jesus from worshipping Jehovah for a few days once.

May you have peace, @boyle!🥰

Here's the reason the Watchtower is going to lose all these cases...
 
"...the religious practice [of disfellowshipping]...which is carried out in accordance with the texts of the Bible..."
 
That is a lie. Their statement of the GB/Watchtower, that "disfellowshipping" is carried out according to Jehovah's Word is a Lie. 
 
Jesus hates that disfellowshipping doctrine. Jehovah hates the disfellowshipping doctrine.
 
Jehovah won't back them as long as they keep lying. They're running right into a wall. Jehovah is the God of Justice. These guys are going to keep losing because they're fighting against Jehovah.
 
They're blaspheming Jehovah with their false doctrines. It's not going to go well for them.
 
"Whom have you taunted and blasphemed?
Against whom have you raised your voice
And lifted your arrogant eyes?  
It is against the Holy One of Israel."
 
(Isaiah 37:23)

…. this is The Year 2023.
All of the above has less relevance than an 85 year old Hippie arguing about Woodstock.
 

Two entirely separate issues.

if you’re going to quote someone, you should put what they actually said in quotation marks at the beginning, and at the end, and reference who it was that was speaking.
This was not done for several of the above posts, and it’s very ambiguous as to who said what, and whether or not it was  a quote, a paraphrase, or someone’s opinion.
 

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics
 

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics
 

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics
 

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics