Many Miles

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking. In fact, some even interpret the term "strangled" to refer to the twisting off of a limb for eating.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26551218?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
in the Tosefta, a supplementary work to the Mishnah. Its teachings date back
to the time of the Tannaim and provide a glimpse into how the early rab-
bis approached Jewish-gentile relations. In t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4, the text states:
“Concerning seven commandments were the sons of Noah admonished:
[establishing] courts of justice, idolatry, cursing the name [of God], illicit inter-
course, bloodshed, thievery and [consuming] a limb from a living beast.”2
These are the commandments generally accepted within rabbinic litera-
ture as the seven Noahide laws pertaining to gentiles. Sifre Deuteronomy, an
early Tannaitic midrash (late 3rd c. CE), provides additional information . . .
That was from:
The Sons of Noah and the Sons of Abraham: The Origins of Noahide Law
Matthew P. Van Zile Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2017), pp. 386-417 (32 pages)

That's true, and, to me, it's captured within the translation "you shall not eat flesh with its life". If the animal was alive (soulical) it's flesh should not be used as food. I'e., to use the flesh of a living animal as food you had to kill it first.
But rabbis said a lot of things, including that the account of Abel was of him making a peace (communion) offering to God, which, if true, means Abel shared in what he offered to God by eating some of the slaughtered animal himself. There is a scriptural argument offering some support to this notion.

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

Anyone who's ever seen some of the society's early minutes from its board of directors could see this right away. Look up the name Rose Ball. I'd have to look up the date in my library, but at one time SHE was the vice president. I know Russell was letting her make decisions. Right? Look her up.
... I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

Anyone who's ever seen some of the society's early minutes from its board of directors could see this right away. Look up the name Rose Ball. I'd have to look up the date in my library, but at one time SHE was the vice president. I know Russell was letting her make decisions. Right? Look her up.
... I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

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

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

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

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

There's that.
And, there's this.
Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?
Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

There's that.
And, there's this.
Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?
Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

There's that.
And, there's this.
Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?
Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Let's start simple, beginning with the text you quoted:
- Where in that text does it say anything whatsoever about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause?
- For that matter, even prior to this, when had anything been said about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause? (This could be a tricky one since prior to this the biblical record does say something about dead carcasses)
Then ask yourself these questions:
- Prior to the flood had God issued a prohibition against more than one edible?
- Was permission given in Eden to eat vegetation a prohibition against eating minerals of the earth, like salt?
- What is a body made of but minerals of the earth?
- If you have a lifeless body (non-soulical) what is that if not just formed elements of earth?
Then ask yourself what you can learn from the natural created world (Ps 19; Rom 1:20):
- In  the natural order of things we see around us in creation, what is the the process by which dead carcasses are made one with the earth again? Who or what does this?
Finally, from a logical perspective:
- Is the absence of permission evidence of a prohibition when there is no presence of a need for permission?
Get back with me after you think through these as base underpinnings for discussion. If you can think of additional base underpinnings please include those too.
 

Thinking, I didn't want you to think I overlooked this conclusion you shared. It's obvious we disagree. Just to be clear, I'm not offended by that, not that that should matter to you. If I'm wrong, as you suggest, I want to know it. But I want to know it for sure. This is why I pursued the discussion as I did in my post above. Insofar as I can read, there are some underpinnings of this subject I'm not convinced you've thought through. But, should you opt to pursue the discussion, we'll find out. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

Since you asked...
The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 
Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.
This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:
1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 
2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.
The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.
So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?
The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.
So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.
Then we have this from Insight:
"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  
Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.
As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.
We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

Loved that program! And, they were correct. 100%

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You’re just using one of those crummy Android jobs and driving a Yugo.

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses.
However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.
There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)
A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.
Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)
All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

Neither Steve Jobs nor Elon Musk would make the mistake of surrounding themselves with Yes-men. Each would depend on good minds around them to check their actions when it would be prudent to do so. Nevertheless, this is not a good example for the purpose you use it for, which reason will follow.
We're not talking about Jobs or Musk. We're talking about whether God expects unlimited obedience to subordinates that He (God) has put in place. In your example you've placed Jobs/Musk at the top. The one at the top in my biblical example is God; not Moses. Moses, though a God appointed spokesman, was not the top dog. The top dog was God. God punished Aaron for his passive support of Moses when he should have given that passive support. Aaron could have acted (respectfully if need be) to check Moses' action at Meribah had he appropriately prioritized his loyalties; his obedience.

In my exposure, it seemed the two departments didn't really interact at all unless some change was afoot. Change could come from any direction. But when it occurred memos would be issued and guidelines would be updated within each department and then everyone under their own umbrella had their marching orders for the day. They were working a job. Not too many added to their job by trying to figure out if something new was coming. They just did their job. The more creative thinkers, I believe, were in writing. The institutionalists were stacked in service. Sometimes it seemed like, inside, the society was a daycare for adults. Honestly, it came across like that sometimes. But this is just a view from my window of exposure to men in different fields at the society. My work was in the field, with people.
Back on the topic, I recall when I first read the "the greatest evidence of all" line in that 1993 brochure, which evidence was the fulfilled "extraordinary prophecy" of Russell's as proclaimed by The World Magazine. I nearly choked on my own coffee! "The greatest evidence of all". Can you imagine?! You know there were some folks in writing clinching their jaws. But not in service. It wasn't their job.
 

Getting back to this, the statement above is based on reasoning put forth by the society. The underpinnings of it can be read here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017578?q=blood+broken+down&p=par
Religious position: Under pain of shunning, JWs cannot eat (transfuse) whole blood, white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma. But if the substance is none of these, then the individual JW can accept or decline according to their own conscience and without religious repercussion.
An extreme irony to the idea that we can eat of what comes from blood once it is no longer blood is made as simple as cooking blood under heat. Why?
When you cook blood under heat the remaining substance is neither whole blood, nor white cells, nor red cells, nor platelets, nor plasma. You can examine the cooked  material all you want. You won't find a trace of a red cell, or a white cell, or platelets, or even plasma. All that anatomy is totally gone under heat. What was blood is no longer blood, according to the society's reasoning.
In a tiny simple nutshell, that shows the current absurd state of our position on eating (transfusing) blood.
 

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.