Many Miles

George, 
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
 
if no, why?

By "staple" I intended to convey common. When animals or humans get  hungry they look for food. We mainly eat to survive. If we have the option of being choosy then we might also defer to taste. But mainly we're trying to survive, especially was this so in the ancient world.
Early humans ate would they could live off of as best they could. When they happened upon carrion dead of natural cause if it was fairly fresh (e.g., less than 24 hours deceased) it would have been very edible if its skin were generally intact. Among large herd animals like the American Bison, when literally tens of millions of them roamed the western plains, it was not uncommon for ancient people to come upon hundreds or even thousands of them drowned in a stampeded to a river off a steep embankment. Of the flesh, it would be harvested and what was not eaten then could be dried for later use. This was the same way they stored vegetable matter for future nutrition.
Using fire to cook food was a means of making all foods even safer to eat, and by cooking food it also helped humans get more nutrition from the food they ate.

I reject the idea that carrion as generally defined was ever a dependable food supply for any living things anytime in history.
It is statistically impossible.
Perhaps if you or an animal killed the prey animal, and then defined that fresh kill as carrion … hmmmm … maybe  … but it is an awkward construct and almost all people DO NOT imagine the grocery stores selling carrion … that is something vultures and other birds who have a highly acidic saliva and stomach acid that will almost instantly disassemble bacteria and toxins do.
In the most general sense, carrion refers to the decaying flesh of dead animals, often found in various stages of decomposition. Carrion can be categorized into different stages of necrosis (decay) based on the degree of decomposition. These stages typically include:
1. Fresh carrion: This is the initial stage of decomposition, where the body is newly deceased, and minimal decay has occurred. The flesh may still appear relatively intact.
2. Bloat stage: During this stage, gases produced by bacteria and other microorganisms begin to accumulate within the body, causing it to swell and become bloated.
3. Active decay: This stage is characterized by the breakdown of tissues, with the release of offensive odors and the presence of scavengers like flies and beetles.
4. Advanced decay: In this stage, most of the flesh has decomposed, leaving behind bones, hair, and tough tissues. Scavengers such as vultures may still feed on what remains.
5. Dry stage: At this point, only desiccated and skeletal remains are left, and decomposition has largely ceased.
Because of the plentiful availability of 5 out of 7 unclean animals on the Ark to be used for predator food, fresh drownings outside the Ark, and when a pregnant “clean” animal died giving birth, and fish, there is no need to introduce the concept of carrion as a food for mankind or animals, in general, but more to the point, it is statistically impossible.

KEY POINT: 
This was BEFORE the Laws were given to Moses.  I personally believe Able was cooking up lambchops or some tasty animal on a homemade fireplace grill and sharing part of it withJehovah.
The Scripture quoted above means to me that 5 out of the 7 unclean animals brought aboard the Ark WERE FOOD FOR THE MEAT EATING ANIMALS!
THINK about it!
Why would Jehovah have over THREE TIMES as many “unclean” animals rescued as “clean” animals?
HE DIDN’T !!
They entered the Ark (the 7s) but they LEFT the Ark by 2s.
Like it or not, accept it or not … but Planet Earth has been populated by predator animals, and prey animals that are eaten for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
THAT IS THE ONLY REALITY THERE IS.
If it offends your delicate sensibilities Please know that it also offends my delicate sensibilities as well, but I realize THAT’s The Way The Real World Works!
Suck it up and don’t be such a pansy!
If you want to be a professional wimp, choose another topic, because EVERYTHING that lives has to EAT.
The dynamic aboard the Ark followed that pattern, as did Able’s lifestyle, and all persons and animals before the Flood, up until now.
All else is Disneyland fantasy.

Of what? Abel eating meat? Can you think of a reason why he wouldn't?
- Vegetation can be just a lethal to humans as meat, depending on what you eat and when.
- Vegetation can spoil just as meat can.
- Meat can be stored by basic methods just like vegetation can.
So, if what you find improbable is the notion of Abel eating meat, why?

I supposed he could have tried.
What does this have to do with Aaron's later sin of being complicit in the disloyalty of God's spokesman, Moses?
After all, a person can by guilty of more than one sin during their life. Right? I'm happy to discuss other instances where Aaron sinned. But the question I've asked in this discussion has to do with the sin of Aaron putting loyalty to God's spokesman ahead of his loyalty to God.

THAT is one heckofa STRETCH.
I give it a probability … and that’s how  I view  EVERYTHING … how probable is it! … of zero.

I supposed he could have tried.
What does this have to do with Aaron's later sin of being complicit in the disloyalty of God's spokesman, Moses?
After all, a person can by guilty of more than one sin during their life. Right? I'm happy to discuss other instances where Aaron sinned. But the question I've asked in this discussion has to do with the sin of Aaron putting loyalty to God's spokesman ahead of his loyalty to God.

To the contrary, it has never been disputed that Aaron was condemned for his sin of disloyalty committed together with Moses. But Aaron could have acted to check Moses' words/action and thereby not have been complicit in Moses' sin of disloyalty. This was an instance where standing passively in support of the God's spokesman was wrong. Aaron should have put his loyalty to God above his loyalty to God's spokesman. 
 

Abel’s sacrifice
Among us there are some who feel that since the Bible does not rule out transplantation of human organs that accepting or rejecting such a transplantation should be left to personal conscience. And so it is among us.
With that in mind we have the biblical account of Abel’s sacrifice. The author attributed to this account is Moses. How Moses describes Abel’s sacrifice is of interest because of what he does and does not say about it. (Of course, what is unsaid could be endless, but there is an item or items of omission that are of particular interest to this subject)
Moses was very familiar with the various sacrificial offerings and statutory language depicting those offerings found in the Law of Moses. He wrote it. In the Genesis account Moses specifically uses the phrase “burnt offering” on at least seven occasions. These have to do with a sacrifice immediately after the flood, and with Abraham’s test of faith regarding sacrificing Isaac. This usage of “brunt sacrifice” is conspicuously absent in the account of Abel’s sacrifice. So, the omission spoken of is the notion that Abel’s sacrifice was a “burnt offering”.
Of Abel’s sacrifice Moses termed it “offering” and not “burnt offering”. Also, of Abel’s sacrifice Moses made sure to include that his offering included “even their fatty pieces”.
As compiler of the Law, Moses was familiar with the different sorts of sacrifices, and it was important as law giver that his readers could understand what he was describing. A burnt offering was one where the entire animal was consumed by fire. The offering that spoke about fatty pieces (not to be confused with fatty ashes) was the communion sacrifice (also known as peace offering). The main difference was that a burnt offering was not shared whereas the communal sacrifice was partly burned on the altar and partly eaten by the worshiper.
So, the question is, did Abel consume part of the sacrifice he made to God as part of a communion offering (peace offering)? This question arises because the offering mentions “fatty pieces” but not in the context of the statutory language “burnt offering” as Moses took care to do with later sacrifices spoken of in the Genesis account. Also, of the later instances in Genesis speaking of "burnt offering" sacrifices nothing is mentioned about "fat" or "fatty" pieces.
On this matter, also there is extra-biblical text in the form of the Babylonian Talmud that states “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat [heleb] thereof. What thing is it whose ‘fat’ [heleb] [only] is offered on the altar, but the whole of it is not offered on the altar? Say, that is a peace-offering.”
So what does any of this have to do with transplantation of human organs? As it is true of transplantation of human organs it is also true of Abel eating meat. As the Bible does not rule out transplantation of human organs for us, it also does not rule out eating meat for Abel.
In other words, though the biblical account of Abel’s sacrifice does not say he ate any of the animal he sacrificed, it is also does not say he didn’t. It’s also true that the sole food prohibition documented for the time was of the tree of knowledge, not meat. Abel could have eaten part of his sacrifice to God as a communion offering.

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth.
I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. 
As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this. 

Thanks for those crystal clear answers. That helps tremendously.
As for what you characterize as me admitting "there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century", I think you're speaking to my comments about the early apostles having supernatural power authenticating their teaching verses today where we do not have teachers with such powers to authenticate their teaching. Is this what you're alluding to?
If so, that distinction would not lessen an authority today, it would only mean we would have to have a different means of verifying authenticity of teaching. The authority would remain the same; God ordained.

As I said at the very beginning of this discussion, the real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
- The language of Paul to Galatia speaks to a limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.
- The incident of what Aaron should or shouldn't have done at Meribah speaks to limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.
- The incident of how David reacted and responded to his King, Saul, speaks to limit of obedience to human authority ordained by God.
In each of these cases the authorities cited were in positions of authority ordained by God. And, in each instance obedience to that ordained authority had a limit.

We must never forget that we each are human, and we each have needs and limitations. Sometimes the seeming simplest of things can wreak havoc in someone's emotions and psyche. Though we should be mindful of this to avoid needless pain, it is still important to help others learn to cope with greater things to help them grow. A key thing for me is accepting that it's okay to find out I'm wrong about something. All truth lovers should gladly embrace that notion. We should look for it! The truth sets us free, and sometimes the truth is that we have false ideas in our own head. Sometimes we also have people asking us to accept something that is wrong. That's okay to admit that these things occur. It's not a statement of failure or malice. It's just part of living, and growing.
Someone asked me recently what it means to worship. My answer was to say our worship is how we choose to live. Our life is our worship. Plain and simple. If this is true, then the only way our worship can be our own is to use our minds to decide how to live, and in my case that together with the Bible and from whatever I can learn from others. If, on the other hand, we decide to let others decide what we are going to believe then, in effect, our worship is not our own. We are just a proxy for someone else's worship.

@Many Miles 
1.) I don't the see how the addition of the Meribah passage helps the discussion since we are focusing in Galatians. Especially since you already stated there is a great disconnect from what Paul is saying and the Ground of Authority in the First century from what is practiced today. "Limited obedience to man" is not the best way to explain Geoffrey Jackson's ARC comments, nor what Paul was doing in Galatians nor what we Jehovah's Witness do everyday when we open the scriptures in my opinion.
2.) Your point about no one is suggesting of removing authority, was being addressed to @George88  not you, and his concerns about the burden of proof from those who are criticizing those in authority. The general rule is that those who seek to rebel against their God ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, if we are criticizing the witness position we have the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics or generalizations. If, for example, I am under the authority of my elders who are in agreement with the governing body and I want to form a division from them, I have the burden of proof of showing that they are wrong. My division would not by default be justified until the Congregation proves to me that I’m in the wrong. Otherwise every witness would be theologically justified in holding his beliefs or being in division until the Congregation made a sufficiently persuasive case to him that he is in the wrong. If a witness for conscientious reasons defied their JW overseers, and then defied the authority of the Governing body, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. Even without the intention of doing anything wrong, and even if they didn’t realize their conscience was in error (and they should seek to inform it) their actions are still evil and sinful. An action can be objectively disordered and harmful, and one can be culpable for doing it , even if one does it with good intentions (good faith, clean conscience).
3.) Since we all affirm every verse in the letter of Galatians as true and inspired by the holy spirit, the disagreement is at the level of interpretation. Again, if we are glossing the essential role of the interpreter, I think we are going to thereby paint a misleading picture. Every time someone appeals to the Bible, they are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. Also, it's very clear to me not only that exegesis and interpretation are two distinct arts, but also that interpretation depends in large part on philosophical assumptions that one brings to the interpretive process.  If we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. I'm concerned that there is no point of discussing anything else until we reach an agreement concerning the essential role of the interpreter.
4.) I hear you they deserve an answer, but if we want to have a genuine dialogue, as distinct from just a polemical exchange that drains energy while persuading nobody, I suggest that we concede that our answers are not obvious and require defense, even if they happen to be true. Until we understand why that is insufficient even in principle, our participation here will be fruitless for all concerned. Millions of people also miss the following question: A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Just because most people miss the question does not mean that we should change the correct answer to the answer most people give. Just for the record I know what 2 + 2 is 😂 

I understand. To the question of "Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?
No.
Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?
Yes, based on what I said after that. 
Your questions about rebellion, are in the context of the past three pages, they don't stand in insolation and the implications you are trying to draw, especially since you already admitted there is a great disconnect from what the Apostles where doing with their authority and what is being done today in the 21 century. 

In the end we have to maintain a tender, but clean conscience. Regardless of who holds authority, saying we're just following orders may not be enough. Like Aaron should have done, we have an obligation to place our ultimate obedience to the ultimate authority. We should not act out of preference or bias. But if acting based on 1) what the Bible says explicitly or 2) acting based on a sound logical conclusion of what the Bible says explicitly is insufficient, then our worship is not our own. In that case, we are worshiping for someone else. But not for ourselves.
For the life of me, I have no idea why simple the question regarding Aaron's action at Meribah is so hard to answer. It's not a hard question. Everyone here should know the answer. Aaron put loyalty to Moses (God's spokesman) ahead of his loyalty to God. In that instance, that was Aaron's sin.
The idea of limited obedience appears to be a new concept. I don't understand this.

No one here, including me, is talking about anyone losing their authority. It is as David said of King Saul, “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul."
It is one thing to act to remove someone from authority whom God has place in authority. That is for God to decide. Whoever that might be, God put them there, not us.
It is another thing to give a man (or group of men) unlimited obedience. God has not asked for that. God always expects us to act in good conscience to put Him first ahead of any other loyalty, or authority. This is the sin Aaron was guilty of at Meribah. When Moses said "we" at Meribah he was speaking of himself and Aaron. Aaron knew better, and so did Moses for that matter. It was God providing the miraculous provision of water, not Moses or Aaron. By not stepping up and checking Moses' actions to give the glory rightfully to God, Aaron was disloyal to God. This despite the fact that God had told Moses that he was "God" to Aaron. Aaron put his loyalty to Moses ahead of his loyalty to God. Aaron could have acted to check Moses, and he didn't.
The same person cited above (David) refused to act in a way that would, in effect, remove Saul from his appointed office. But David also refused to give limitless obedience to Saul. Saul, the anointed of Jehovah, said to David, "Come back". Instead, David "proceed to go his way". (See 1 Samuel 26:21-26)
Paul too addressed the notion of limitless obedience in his introduction to Galatia. As presented earlier, this is not a matter of personal interpretation, of giving preference to personal bias.
 

No one here, including me, is talking about anyone losing their authority. It is as David said of King Saul, “It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, by thrusting out my hand against him, for he is the anointed of Jehovah.” Accordingly David dispersed his men with these words, and he did not allow them to rise up against Saul."
It is one thing to act to remove someone from authority whom God has place in authority. That is for God to decide. Whoever that might be, God put them there, not us.
It is another thing to give a man (or group of men) unlimited obedience. God has not asked for that. God always expects us to act in good conscience to put Him first ahead of any other loyalty, or authority. This is the sin Aaron was guilty of at Meribah. When Moses said "we" at Meribah he was speaking of himself and Aaron. Aaron knew better, and so did Moses for that matter. It was God providing the miraculous provision of water, not Moses or Aaron. By not stepping up and checking Moses' actions to give the glory rightfully to God, Aaron was disloyal to God. This despite the fact that God had told Moses that he was "God" to Aaron. Aaron put his loyalty to Moses ahead of his loyalty to God. Aaron could have acted to check Moses, and he didn't.
The same person cited above (David) refused to act in a way that would, in effect, remove Saul from his appointed office. But David also refused to give limitless obedience to Saul. Saul, the anointed of Jehovah, said to David, "Come back". Instead, David "proceed to go his way". (See 1 Samuel 26:21-26)
Paul too addressed the notion of limitless obedience in his introduction to Galatia. As presented earlier, this is not a matter of personal interpretation, of giving preference to personal bias.
 

Honestly, that’s what it sounds like. Ask a basic question regarding Aaron’s behavior at Meribah, the answer to which should be known by everyone in the room, and we see everything but a straightforward answer. Admittedly, I fail to understand this. 

In the end we have to maintain a tender, but clean conscience. Regardless of who holds authority, saying we're just following orders may not be enough. Like Aaron should have done, we have an obligation to place our ultimate obedience to the ultimate authority. We should not act out of preference or bias. But if acting based on 1) what the Bible says explicitly or 2) acting based on a sound logical conclusion of what the Bible says explicitly is insufficient, then our worship is not our own. In that case, we are worshiping for someone else. But not for ourselves.
For the life of me, I have no idea why simple the question regarding Aaron's action at Meribah is so hard to answer. It's not a hard question. Everyone here should know the answer. Aaron put loyalty to Moses (God's spokesman) ahead of his loyalty to God. In that instance, that was Aaron's sin.
The idea of limited obedience appears to be a new concept. I don't understand this.

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it.
So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body.
I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture.
So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority.
So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.
Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses).
So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.

So pre-flood we know it was a sin to eat of the tree of knowledge. Do we agree on that?
Now, are we supposed to believe that eating carrion was also a sin prior to the flood?
Would Adam have jeopardized his perfect condition were he to have eaten carrion when he looked around creation and saw carrion being eaten as created by God?

Genesis 6:21 says, “And on your part get yourself some of every kind of food that is eaten, and stow it with you, so as to have it for your eating and for theirs.”
According to the society, carrion was a kind of food eaten prior to the flood. Creation testifies to this. Carrion eaters, like cockroaches, are part of God's creative work.
So, do we accept Genesis 6:21 literally for what it says?
If not, then aren't we interjecting a food prohibition what was never stated to Adam in the first place? I don't see anything in the biblical record prohibiting pre-flood humans from eating carrion, just like I don't see anything in the biblical record prohibiting pre-flood animals from eating carrion. Do you?
As for Genesis 1:29, 30, for reasons already stated, we know the list there of what humans could eat is not exhaustive. Though the text (Gen 1:29, 30) does not spell out carrion it also does not spell out essential nutrition like water or milk. Do you think pre-flood humans could not (did not) eat water or milk because they were not listed at Genesis 1:29, 30?