Pudgy

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.
Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?
We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.
 

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.
No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

Whose? Can you type in your sleep?

It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness.
The explanation I see is very simple. The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).  The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.
The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand. Take for example the relationship of the US Constitution and the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had some very beneficial insights concerning law and life. These were incorporated into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta itself became obsolete and was revoked, but whatever principles were borrowed from it, they became part of the Constitution, and it was only from the Constitution that those principles acquired legal force. In the same way, Scripture declares that the Old Covenant was legally revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 10:9) but its spiritual and moral principles were utilized in the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-18; Gal 5:14; 1Co 9:9; Rm 7:7-12). 
As a practical guide to life we have borrowed some ethical and worship principles from the Old Covenant. We borrowed from the Ten Commandments (although the New Covenant alters them a little to fit the Good News); we borrowed from some of the civil laws (paying just wages), and even have borrowed from some of the ceremonial laws. But whatever we borrow and practice, it is not because the Old Covenant, in whole or in part, is itself still legally valid, but because the New Covenant has the authority to incorporate any principle from the Old Covenant it wishes if it finds it helpful for Christian living. In that way, the Old Covenant laws are under the legal jurisdiction of the New Covenant, not the Old. Hence, the Congregation could legally abolish the entire Judaic/Mosaic law, but then take from the Judaic/Mosaic law those moral, civil or ceremonial principles that they saw fit for the Christian community.

@Many Miles I'm going over some of the comments and concerns brought out in this thread
It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness.
The explanation I see is very simple. The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).  The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.
The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand. Take for example the relationship of the US Constitution and the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had some very beneficial insights concerning law and life. These were incorporated into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta itself became obsolete and was revoked, but whatever principles were borrowed from it, they became part of the Constitution, and it was only from the Constitution that those principles acquired legal force. In the same way, Scripture declares that the Old Covenant was legally revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 10:9) but its spiritual and moral principles were utilized in the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-18; Gal 5:14; 1Co 9:9; Rm 7:7-12). 
As a practical guide to life we have borrowed some ethical and worship principles from the Old Covenant. We borrowed from the Ten Commandments (although the New Covenant alters them a little to fit the Good News); we borrowed from some of the civil laws (paying just wages), and even have borrowed from some of the ceremonial laws. But whatever we borrow and practice, it is not because the Old Covenant, in whole or in part, is itself still legally valid, but because the New Covenant has the authority to incorporate any principle from the Old Covenant it wishes if it finds it helpful for Christian living. In that way, the Old Covenant laws are under the legal jurisdiction of the New Covenant, not the Old. Hence, the Congregation could legally abolish the entire Judaic/Mosaic law, but then take from the Judaic/Mosaic law those moral, civil or ceremonial principles that they saw fit for the Christian community.

Having a “bad hair day” is ok occasionally, if you still have hair.

Triage: You take care of family first.

GB Bro. David Splane’s step-brother Ron explains about fishing …,

Triage: You take care of family first.

Triage: You take care of family first.

(Quora question) Besides being a significant source for literacy in lands where it is poor, they are well known for disaster relief, prompting taking care of their own, in catastrophic times. They thus provide a good example for other groups to follow, for there is no reason that anyone cannot do as they do.  In recent years, some critics have attempted to spin this exercise of brotherly love as a lack of concern for anyone else. They do this even though they themselves would—say, in the event of an earthquake—check on family members first, never dreaming that anyone would frame that as indifference to the suffering of others. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a family, frankly not large enough to fix everyone. If opponents refuse to acknowledge that love of God can form the basis of family, that is hardly the Witnesses’ fault, is it?  

Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back).
MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread.
The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607.  Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology.
The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE. The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE. The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586 The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology. Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607. Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539. Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus) That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539) The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period. NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap. NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence. NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions. NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses. To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology. To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.)  To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011  (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186) Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607." Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874). The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915." After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine. After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.

…

“ CAMBRIDGE, MA — The President of Harvard University, Claudine Gay, announced today that the university has installed Jew detectors at all entrances.
"This is a step in the right direction," President Gay told reporters. "It might not be the last step. We are always looking for a final solution to the Jewish problem on campus."
The move to install Jew detectors at all entrances comes amidst a wave of anti-semitic attacks on campus. The hope in using the detector system is that, once detected, Jewish students can be safely concentrated away in a location or camp where they will be free to be Jewish away from the other students.
The detectors, which claim to be capable of detecting a Jew with 99.99% accuracy, are designed to pick up the most blatant Zionism, basic ethnic markers, and even the slightest trace of disgust over the targeted murder and kidnapping of children for the noble cause of freeing Palestine.
"The Jew detector systems we have installed show our resolve in tackling bigotry and keeping everybody safe while maintaining our commitment to free expression and tolerance," Gay said in her announcement.”
The Babylon Bee

If in fact you actually deal with academia every day, you have my sympathies.

No, Georgie, you are making up false premises entirely from your own imagination.
… as you habitually do multiple times in almost every one of your posts. 
Read over your last six or eight posts.
Or better still … “get out of the basement more”. 
As with everyone, too soon you will be DEAD, and none of this will matter …. or even be remembered.
It does not matter.

Georgie, it is clear you are confusing this collective audience with people somewhere else that may (and I am being generous here …) care about your irrational delusions.
They are entertaining.
They are sadly funny, in a cringeworthy sort of way.
You are stuck in your Agenda like a prehistoric bug in amber. Forever frozen in time.
I hope that before you die, you are able to break free.

No, Georgie, you are making up false premises entirely from your own imagination.
… as you habitually do multiple times in almost every one of your posts. 
Read over your last six or eight posts.
Or better still … “get out of the basement more”. 
As with everyone, too soon you will be DEAD, and none of this will matter …. or even be remembered.
It does not matter.

You haven't proven anything against JWInsider.
We have only proven that the WTJWorg chronology is not a "sacred cow" or "sacred calf" aka idol.
I say that WTJWorg created an "idol". It's an "idol" that JWInsider doesn't want to worship, unlike you (and many others) who do. Are the letters blurry?

It’s impossible for me to care less about your library, Georgie …. as I stated, I was just trying to verify whether or not you were lying about that particular book being in your personal library … which I considered to be highly improbable.
 

It’s THAT SIMPLE!

I think it's better to laugh than share downvotes. lol
 

Unlike you, JWInsider arrives at the date by researching and reviewing the existing WTJWorg chronology.
If he is wrong, then it does not prove anything against him, except that he was wrong.
With WTJWorg, it's a completely different story. They claim that they know better than everyone else because they are allegedly "led by HS". They created a dogma and specific "idol" out of chronology. If you don't believe in the "idol" then you will be excommunicated. lol