Many Miles

Not rationally.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
 

Here: 
 

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

Your response is like chattering teeth. You make noise, but don't convey anything sensical.
1) As a premise, it's not "technical" whether an item is this or that. It's either this or that.
2) It's patently false to suggest flesh of animals dead of natural cause that is fit to eat is not a practical edible. Humans and animals consume this sort of food all the time. (This how I've expressly used the term "carrion" here and elsewhere on this forum and to assert otherwise is equivocation. Not that you'd care.) From a practical nutritional standpoint there is no difference between flesh of animals dead of natural cause compared to the flesh of animals dead by slaughter.
3) Availability and dependability are questions of opportunity. If the opportunity of harvesting edible flesh of an animal dead of natural cause is present then it is available, and how dependable is that availability is likewise a question of continued opportunity, just like it is with any other food source. Animals are dying of natural cause all the time. It can be harvested and stored according to availability and need.
4) Storage by the ancients of harvested flesh of an animal dead of natural cause was as possible as it was for vegetation.
5) I'm wasting my time responding to you because you don't care about the subject or persons who might read what's here. You want to clap out nonsense and share cartoons and memes, apparently to entertain yourself.
 

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

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

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

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

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

I just figured this was one of the pitfalls of using Large Language Model /A.I. to try to enhance one's writing style and grammar, etc. G..88's writing has shows signs of this in the past.
I've read that LLM/AI can confuse what someone is trying to say while it attempts to improve it, especially if the original is convoluted. Also LLM/AI can "hallucinate" ideas from its many sources, especially because it often doesn't always know to give more authority to Scripture than to various blogs and commentaries about Scripture. (Might even confuse the Flood account with the Epic of Gilgamesh which also has the different types of birds sent out.) It can probably even get the wrong impression from a joke like the one that goes:
Q: "How many of each clean animal did Moses take onto the ark?"
A: None. Moses didn't take any animals on the ark. Noah did.
Even the idea that there were clean and unclean animals somehow identified before the Mosaic Law could confuse LLM/AI just as it confuses Bible scholars today. 

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion.

What infers that it is "unlikely" that, PRIOR to the flood, Noah would have eaten flesh of animals dead of natural cause so long as it was fit to eat?
When you say, Noah "possessed a pre-flood understanding of God's intentions" what are you talking about specifically? Are you suggesting pre-flood humans were FORBIDDEN from eating of something other than the tree of knowledge?
I don't see any written issuance where God suggested His intentions one way or another regarding eating the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, EXCEPT we do have the WRITTEN testimony of God telling us His creation testifies of His will, and His creation tells us that dead animal carcasses have always been eaten and metabolized by other living creatures as part of earth's natural ecosystem. Noah would unavoidably witnessed carcasses of animals dead of natural cause being eaten. What had God said that would have instructed Noah that he couldn't eat the same thing if it was fit enough to eat?
And, George, if you want me to respond you're going to have to provide concise and solid answers or else I'll just keep ignoring you.

What laws are you talking about? Mosaic Law? post-flood Noahide law? Pre-flood law? What law are you talking about?

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion.

To me the biblical record of decision found in Acts 15 embodies essential things that predated Mosaic Law and were understood as part of fearing God and working righteousness. Hence, 'abstain from blood' would mean abstain from blood like Noah was told to abstain from blood, which included abstaining from unjustified homicide (blood "guilt").
Often I've mused aloud to students and peers that Adam, though given some instruction (including one definite no-no), was otherwise living under natural law, that is what felt natural for him as he was created. So, for instance, though there was no statutory law against murder, Adam knew he didn't want to die, or at least I think it's safe to assume that. Hence, if Adam didn't want to die then why would he kill another human? He would have seen animals live and die. He would have even observed carcasses of dead animals being eaten as part of earth's natural ecosystem. But he knew that, as a human, he didn't want to die. Hence there was a natural law standing between Adam and murder. Of course, natural law can be a subjective and mercurial thing.
Living a life in fear of God and working righteousness (meaning: obeying natural law) is, I believe, what led to the worship of men like Abel and Cornelius being accepted by God as his worshipers aside from formalized systems of religion.
 

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

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

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

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