Many Miles

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.
What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.
WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.
Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:
- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).
- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.
- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.
- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)
- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.
- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.
Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.
I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).
Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.
When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.
 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.
 

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.
What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.
WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.
Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:
- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).
- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.
- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.
- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)
- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.
- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.
Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.
I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).
Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.
When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.
 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.
 

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.
What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.
WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.
Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:
- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).
- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.
- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.
- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)
- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.
- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.
Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.
I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).
Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.
When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.
 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.
 

The text of Genesis 9 is not of my making. I'm just taking it for what it addresses, and what it says about what it addresses. The portion that required an abstention from eating blood was said of living creatures that would be killed to eat.
By soulical, I refer to that which is alive as a soul. A soul is composed of two things that must be joined, or else there is no soul, no life. Those two components are a body formed from the dust and the breath of life. (Gen 2:7; Eccl 3:19-20) As living flesh, humans are souls. As living flesh, animals are souls. Without life both are just formed dust of the ground. No more.
The text of Genesis 9 does not speak at all to animals that died of natural cause, but it does speak of animals killed by humans. Hence how an animal dies is relevant. Of natural cause, the text does not speak of it. Of human hand, the text does speak of it.
Unless the animal's life was taken by human hand, then it's not subject to the text of Genesis 9. Otherwise, the sort of deaths you speak of would be natural cause in the animal kingdom. (2 Pet 2:12) How a person would determine cause of death would be up to each person before God's eyes. But there would be instances where cause would be discernible as natural. If, for instance, you see a goat fall from a cliff face it's attempting to climb, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. If, for instance, you find a cow dead from hemorrhage during calving, you could be pretty sure the cause was natural. I could go on.
The relevance of "soulicalness" is addressed just above.
This is irrelevant. The same could be said of vegetation. Humans are subject to illness from every food source known to man. This is true of fresh and preserved food, whether botanical or biological.
Well, for starters, human hunting and killing of an animal would make food of that animal subject to the text of Genesis 9. Second, you legitimately raised the issue of 'low-hanging fruit', and making use of animal flesh found dead of natural cause whose flesh is fit to eat is 'low-hanging fruit' from multiple perspectives, including the fact that one didn't have to subject themselves to the dangers of trying to kill an animal who's going to fight in defense of itself.
What Adam or Noah may or may not have been able to do is speculation, and I don't like to build arguments on speculation. I'd rather start with premises that are actually evidenced.
Hopefully my response in this case helps. If you still have questions to challenge things I've said, please do ask them. If I'm wrong I want to know it.
In this discussion I've addressed multiple subjects that impinge the issue of scriptural underpinnings for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood. The subject of animal carcasses dead of natural cause is just one of many I've raised. These carcasses are potentially loaded with blood, and nothing said to Noah (or Adam!) prohibited the eating of this flesh one way or another.
 

"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."
These two statements have something in common. Each is said of something that had been given to humans, and each carves out an exception to that gift.
The topic of this discussion is the scriptural basis for refusing a transfusion of products rendered from blood.
In the first statement above regarding the tree of knowledge, the sin of Eve is expressed this way: "So she began taking of its fruit and eating it."
"Taking of" and "eating" are the verbs at issue. Eve took something in a way she had been told not to. Eve had not been told to abstain from the tree. She had been told to abstain from eating from the tree. This becomes an issue because the blood the society says we must abstain from is precisely the blood from which all the products JWs accept are rendered. Under this doctrine, JWs are "taking of" the blood.
If it turns out to be the the case that there does exist a scriptural basis for abstaining from transfusion of donor blood, then accepting transfusion of products (the "fruit") rendered from that blood is equally forbidden, because that's what the "fruit" was picked from, which is what got Eve in trouble in the first case.
Or, would we dare suggest Eve could have taken of it's fruit, processed that fruit to get what she wanted to eat from it and thrown the rest away and all would have been good?
 

It's often the case that simple things explain what others see as complex issues. The problem occurs when those who see nothing but complexity fail to see how a simple thing resolves, what is to them, a complexity. 
- Sometimes a person can fail to see a forest because of focusing on a tree.
- Other times a person can fail to see a tree because of focusing on a forest.
But, oftentimes we have no choice but to dig through a lot of complexity to find a solution in a simple thing. This is where discussion with others is helpful. We can learn from one another. Sometimes a silly idea expressed aloud can lead a listener to an epiphany, only because the silly idea led them to a perspective they'd never considered before.

This is an interesting comment. It suggests commonness as a premise to establish an understood though unstated permission.
From prehistoric time there is abundant evidence that animals dead of natural cause has been an extremely common food item, in fact an essential food item for earth's ecosystem.
The biblical text says of Adam, "...God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name. So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him."
If Adam had sufficient observation of earth's animals to realize there was no compliment of him it means he had a lot of observation of earth's animals. Animals eating carcasses dead of natural cause is so common it's unavoidable that Adam would have observed this. It was common. It was extremely common. It was common because, for animals, it was an unavoidable eventuality. (2 Pet 2:12)
If, as expressed above, a food item is so commonplace that it "need not be mentioned", then permission would be so understood it needed no mention.
However, as Adam would have commonly observed animals eating carcasses dead of natural cause, he would have equally observed animals eating vegetation. Yet, in particular for animals, vegetation was mentioned as a permissible food whereas carcasses dead of natural cause was not mentioned though we know both these food items were on the menu. Hence the veracity of this premise is questionable.
 

We do know that it was not uncommon for humans to eat animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Jews had to be told NOT to do this. Yet those same Jews were told they could sell that very food to gentiles who would eat it. Hence, I have no reason to think Cornelius didn't make use of such food and every reason to think he probably did. That said, of course the biblical account of Cornelius does not bore down to the detail of what he knew specifically about Noah. But God knew what He looked for in worship He accepted, and He accepted Cornelius' worship. Even though not a Jew. God accepted his worship. Even though not a Christian. God accepted his worship. Of course, when Christianity was revealed to Cornelius he accepted it. But from God's reaction we can have a decent idea that Cornelius was doing right by what God expected of folks.
I agree, there is natural law to consider. There is also ignorance to consider. What is a good hearted person to do who's acting on the best they know, despite their ignorance. One of my very favorite biblical texts is a psalm that exclaims God will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. Could be that Cornelius landed on this ground.
 

Indisputably there was internal struggles related to growing the Christian church. Worshipers were being welcomed into the fold that, from the Jewish Christians' paradigm, were disgusting. (Think Cornelius) I don't know if the vision Peter had was real or if he just invented it. But the biblical account says it was real, so I run with that. But, could be Peter just didn't want to get the push-back he saw Paul getting, so he conveniently had a vision that set everything straight insofar as how he saw fit to address expansion of the church among gentiles. And, who was going to question Peter's word?

I realize your comment is sarcasm, but it's ironic that you make this particular comment within this discussion. It was precisely by IV administration of washed red cells (what we'd call packed red cells today) to litter mate puppies that it was demonstrated once and for all that, despite being rich in protein, transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support whatsoever. This has to do with human pathology and how it makes use of circulating blood. Even under extreme starvation our bodies will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.

For starters, the notion that the Christian biblical decree to "abstain from blood" is a resurrection of provisions of Mosaic Law is a nonstarter. The intra-Acts account of Cornelius demonstrates this. For a moment, we can set aside potentially conflicting teachings Paul wrote by just focusing on the same (and sole!) biblical text containing the decree to "abstain from blood", and we need look no further than the account of Cornelius at Acts 10. This man was gentile. He was not worshiping God according to Mosaic Law. According to the vision Peter beheld, Cornelius was doing things that would make a proper Jew puke! Yet his worship was acceptable to God. The text says in relation to Cornelius, "in every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to [God]."
Based on the biblical record we have, looking through God's eyes, Cornelius would have been bound to extra-Mosaic Law standards, which would have included everything of the Genesis account but not much afterward. Hence, in relation to blood, how would Cornelius have demonstrated "fear" of God and evidenced works of "righteousness"? He would have had to show respect for life by abstaining from unjustified homicide, which might have been tough as a soldier. Out of godly "fear" he also would have respected life by taking care not to eat an animal without killing it first, and when he killed it for food he would have refrained from eating it's blood. THAT is how he would have demonstrated "fear" of God and evidenced works of "righteousness" in respect to 'abstaining from blood'. That was it.
In respect to things Paul taught, and given that we find the decree "abstain from blood" nowhere but in the text of Acts, issues arise as you suggest. But, in my mind, unless someone points out something I've not thought of (entirely possible, if not likely!), the account of Cornelius is sufficient to determine that the decree to "abstain from blood" is answered in the text of Genesis. The Genesis text tells us what blood to abstain from, and what abstention is required of that blood.
I'm not intending to truncate a discussion you might want to pursue, and I'm willing to pursue it because I have every reason to think I can learn from you. But, in the case of the decree to "abstain from blood" I think information within the text of Acts is sufficient to narrow down what is required.
 

The biblical Abel killed an animal. Based on His response, God was okay with that.
What gave Abel permission to kill an animal in the first place?

I'm sure whoever wrote the account had a reason for however they wrote it. Whatever that reason was (or not!) unless we have a provable proposition regarding it then we just have to take what's written and work from that, which includes what is not written. In rational (logical) terms, silence means only silence, unless there is a provable proposition that says it means something else.
Here are two questions for you:
Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?
If yes, does that suggest milk was not a food that should have been eaten by early humans?
Continuing, take a look at these two statements:
As the author intentionally wrote the account, the "ideal diet" expressed for animals was vegetation. Right? Yet the natural created world testifies (as you admit) that animals were eating meat at the very time addressed by the author of the Genesis account.
Do you accept the biblical notion that creation testifies to God's will? (Ps 19) If you do, then we know animal flesh was being eaten as food as long as there have been animals. Hence, though I'm sure the writer of the Genesis account had reasons for writing what was written, I have no need to think that writer's intent was to deny what nature tells us. For all I know the writer of the Genesis account was employing some kind of self-invented prose to paint a tapestry of nature's elegance. Who knows? And, so what? I can't read a writer's mind. But I can read what they wrote, which also discloses what they didn't write. And, unless there's provable reason to think otherwise, from a logical perspective, silence means no more than silence. In other words, the absence of an express permission suggests neither permission nor prohibition.
Please read what you wrote there, and I'm going to substitute a single word:
'At this point, any astute reader would wonder about milk. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about milk? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about milk?'
Since the most essential nutrient needed by humans is water, here the same query worded another way:
'At this point, any astute reader would wonder about water. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about water? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about water?'
A logical thinker would just see silence on meat (or milk or water) and not read anything into that as though it meant anything more than silence. That is, unless there was provable reason to think otherwise.
And, there's another example of potentially reading something into the text regarding silence. As it is true of meat, it is also true of milk. I could say, "And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about milk!" (Gen 18:8) And, in response to MYSELF I'd say, so what? That an account is silent until it's not does not mean an initial silence means anything other than silence, unless there is provable reason to think otherwise.
And, by the way, even in the instance you refer to in the comment above (Gen 8 and 9) there is still no mention of eating non-soulical flesh (animals dead of natural cause), though both soulical and non-soulical flesh have already been mentioned in the Genesis account. The accounts you refer to above speak to the use of soulical flesh.
 

We do know that it was not uncommon for humans to eat animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Jews had to be told NOT to do this. Yet those same Jews were told they could sell that very food to gentiles who would eat it. Hence, I have no reason to think Cornelius didn't make use of such food and every reason to think he probably did. That said, of course the biblical account of Cornelius does not bore down to the detail of what he knew specifically about Noah. But God knew what He looked for in worship He accepted, and He accepted Cornelius' worship. Even though not a Jew. God accepted his worship. Even though not a Christian. God accepted his worship. Of course, when Christianity was revealed to Cornelius he accepted it. But from God's reaction we can have a decent idea that Cornelius was doing right by what God expected of folks.
I agree, there is natural law to consider. There is also ignorance to consider. What is a good hearted person to do who's acting on the best they know, despite their ignorance. One of my very favorite biblical texts is a psalm that exclaims God will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. Could be that Cornelius landed on this ground.
 

We do know that it was not uncommon for humans to eat animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Jews had to be told NOT to do this. Yet those same Jews were told they could sell that very food to gentiles who would eat it. Hence, I have no reason to think Cornelius didn't make use of such food and every reason to think he probably did. That said, of course the biblical account of Cornelius does not bore down to the detail of what he knew specifically about Noah. But God knew what He looked for in worship He accepted, and He accepted Cornelius' worship. Even though not a Jew. God accepted his worship. Even though not a Christian. God accepted his worship. Of course, when Christianity was revealed to Cornelius he accepted it. But from God's reaction we can have a decent idea that Cornelius was doing right by what God expected of folks.
I agree, there is natural law to consider. There is also ignorance to consider. What is a good hearted person to do who's acting on the best they know, despite their ignorance. One of my very favorite biblical texts is a psalm that exclaims God will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. Could be that Cornelius landed on this ground.
 

In the past, even on this forum, I have argued the necessity of the Noahide Laws (the Acts 15 version at least partially motivated by them) for Jehovah's acceptance of Gentiles. Not that it was counted as righteousness, but "acceptableness" at least.  But we don't know that Cornelius actually feared God through a knowledge of those Noahide Laws, specifically, the law about blood, strangulation, or even the law about not eating a portion of his nutrition derived from a living animal.  It's quite possible. And that idea that Cornelius may have been a proselyte actually comes from a similar idea that Jews (and therefore early Christians) would call someone a "God-fearer" only when they had already shown a desire to follow the true God. It could be a step below a proselyte. The Watchtower publications are clear that Cornelius was not a proselyte although acknowledging that some commentators have made that claim. 
But Cornelius may have been considered a God-fearer for other reasons, unrelated to any knowledge of or practice of Noahide-style requirements. For example, there is the reference to natural law in Romans 1:
(Romans 1:19, 20) . . .because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, . . .
(Acts 17:22-28) . . .“Men of Athens, I see that in all things you seem to be more given to the fear of the deities than others are. 23  For instance, while passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration, I found even an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you are unknowingly worshipping, this I am declaring to you. 24  The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; 25  nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. 26  And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27  so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28  For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’
 
 

I am not trying to say it was a resurrection of Mosaic Law provisions, only that it was decided through a conference of and entire congregation of Jewish Mosaic-Law-abiding Christians. Therefore it was part of a context that would make sense to a "Mosaic" congregation and could be approved by a "Mosaic" congregation. I don't deny that the motivation for creating a set of "Rules for Gentile Christians" was the same motivation for Rabbinical Noahide Laws. But there is some good evidence that James (maybe also Peter and the entire congregation) agreed that this particular set of Noahide Laws should find a precedent in the ONLY section of the Mosaic Law that addressed rules for Gentiles. As I said before, they just happened to closely match the four rules of that section of Mosaic Law, and just happened to be listed in the same order as that section of Mosaic Law.
This might even be implied in the very statement in Acts if we read the next sentence after the decree:
(Acts 15:19-21) . . .Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20  but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 
Also, notice that Paul was accused of apostasizing from Moses well after being asked to accept the Acts 15 decree.  
(Acts 21:18-21) . . .But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. ... but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of [Christian] believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 
 
Granted, this isn't the exact same as the problem of Acts 15, but we can easily see where the rumors likely had come from (Galatians).

Good point. But if meat was not a food eaten by humans at this point, then it still isn't proof that Noah and his relatives ate meat. He might have, but we don't know for sure.
Another good point. As you say, it "could" mean this.
Another good point. It is implied that he had permission based on God's positive reaction. Or, he may have assumed that he needed to follow Jehovah's recommended tailor-made clothing styles based his parents wardrobe. Pre-shed snake skins might not have cut it and perhaps he had already been through several sizes of animals for his own since childhood.
At any rate, I won't worry about all the details of these conjectures because I still fall back upon other reasons relevant to the use of blood products by true Christians. So I'll skip to your most recent post before this one.

Yes, but it's just an unfounded opinion of mine. It's clear that a lot of details we might be interested in were left out of Genesis, and the entire Bible, for that matter. For example: did either Adam or Eve have a belly-button? We can assume that if something was left out, even if we are interested, then it was not considered important enough to include, nor does it mean that every detail included is of absolute importance either. How important, for example, is it for us to know that it was A'dah who gave birth to Ja'bal?
Quite probably the ideal (or even the idealized) diet for Adam and Eve did not include milk, but not because milk was forbidden. It is probably because the important diet for them was all provided within the Garden of Eden where there was no mention of livestock being cared for. And the primary point of the garden was that Jehovah was providing them with a diet that did not even require them to break a sweat. And this was best represented by focusing on low-hanging fruit, as it were. Also, it would probably be considered so commonplace for children of all humans and mammals, that mother's milk need not be mentioned for the diet of Cain, Abel, Seth, daughter(s), etc.  A major purpose of livestock was for milk as we see from later scriptures, and although Abel evidently had access to some livestock, it's not pointed out as a "thing" until Gen 4:20 quoted above. 
Not at all. But we don't know if Adam and Eve ever tried it, or if they were supposed to try it. As I said before, we don't even know for sure if meat was supposed to be forbidden to early humans prior to Noah. But I still think it was purposeful that meat and even milk were not specifically included in the ideal "garden-variety" diet provided to Adam and Eve.
Yes. Although technically Psalm 19 says nothing about the earth's animal life or ecosystem. It's about the heavens and the firmament (under which God measured out a place to place the earth). "Heaven" by this time in Hebrew cosmology had evidently moved above the dome of the firmament where Jehovah kept the earth's waters separated from heaven's waters. The usual way in which earth's wildlife testified to God's will is something you already alluded to in 2 Peter (and therefore also Jude). They provided a good testimony about God's will that man aspire to something much higher than unreasoning beasts born naturally to be caught and destroyed. Man was ideally much higher than the beasts and would therefore have them in subjection, subdued.
(2 Peter 2:12) . . .like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed. . .
(Jude 10) . . .And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.
(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) . . .I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19  for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20  All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. 21  Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth? 
(Psalm 73:22) . . .And I was unreasoning and I could not know; I became as mere beasts from your standpoint.
Yes. A very important point that I agree with and have also expressed.
Mostly true. At least up to the point where we find a set of statements to Noah very similar to the original statements given to Adam and Eve about their purpose and their diet that changed in only one important way. Because this time it includes an express permission for meat that we didn't see before, along with the idea that there is something new in this version of the statements ("now" I give you meat), and something that would be recognized as having already been given in the earlier statements about diet (just as I [previously] permitted vegetation). The way it was expressed should therefore give us food for thought.
Of course, I'm still not saying that any specific position regarding meat is "proven" but the very fact that it is not proven one way or another is the reason I don't see any reason to try to build a further step of logic onto such a weak, unproven foundation.
And that is the same point I am making about not being able to make mush use of any unproven reasoning about the actual diet of early humans or the ideal diet expressly spelled out for the first pair in the garden.
Same point again. No mention. Therefore no specific position (with respect to this discussion) is provable from a purely Biblical standpoint.   

Another simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans before Noah that they could eat meat? Yes or No
if one answers that it doesn't say, therefore he might have, then one could just as easily say that we must also not know what else God might have forbidden --because it also doesn't say.
Or this example: Did God ever give the first man and woman a directive about what they could eat? Yes or No.
Or this: Did there come a time when God did bring up the subject of diet again with Noah? Yes or No. And did God mention that there would be something in addition to vegetation this time? Yes or No.
When God first mentioned a diet that included both vegetation and something additional, did God use use the word "NOW" as if it was now something he had not added previously? Yes or No.
(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .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. 
If this were a reading test, given to elementary school students, which of the following two paraphrases would reflect the most likely meaning of the verses quoted above?
A. You have always been able to eat animals, birds and fish, but I am now giving them to you again, and just as you have always eaten green vegetation before, I am now giving you a reminder that you can still eat the meat of animals.
B. I am now giving you permission to eat animals, birds and fish, just as I had previously given you green vegetation to eat.  
I think the straightforward way to read it is fairly obvious to most of us, even though it doesn't seem to match a very probable view of what would happen more naturally. But there could be a different reason that the Bible wants to emphasize Jehovah's view of what should have been the original ideal purpose of a world where killing and slaughtering would have been unnecessary, yet sin and the fall of man resulted in concessions to our fallen, sinful nature. As @Thinking implied much earlier, this could have been a somewhat symbolic reason for the "animal skins" that Jehovah provided for Adam and Eve after sin entered the world. It could be the reason that two major accounts of bloodshed were highlighted (Cain/Lamech) and animal sacrifice became closely associated early on with bloodshed and then atonement and appeasement (Abel/Noah/Abraham/Moses).  

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.

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.