JW Insider

I guess most of us would think we are doing just that, but what might seem reasonable to one person might not seem reasonable to another person. It's my opinion that just because "carrion" is one of of at least ONE MILLION PLUS "kinds" of all food, I don't think it's reasonable to think that Noah took ONE MILLION-PLUS "kinds" of food, and we especially can't arbitrarily pick any ONE of those million-plus foods and decide that it MUST have been one of the MILLION-PLUS that Noah must have included.
Reasonableness and context drive me to think that Noah took LESS than one million types of food and therefore left some of them off the list, nutritious or not. And if we are giving preference to what the Bible actually says, then we should consider that there may be a very good reason that the Bible NEVER says that Noah took carrion onto the Ark. 
I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam. And worms and insects and bacteria and microbes appear naturally designed for breaking down dead animal and vegetable matter and that could include remains from animals killed or those that died by other natural causes. So it's not a stretch to believe that many animals were designed from the start to eat other animals no matter how they died.
I agree that 2 Pet 2:12 may easily include carrion but carrion it is not explicitly mentioned here either.

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.

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.
 
 

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.

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.
 
 

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.

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.
 
 

That's true that it could and often does, but carrion COULD also be fresher than some of the meats found in my local meat market. It's still carrion even if it is only one hour old, and the animal died and freeze-dried itself in a blizzard. But I agree with you that there is no evidence that Noah ate such things. I don't think anyone here ever hinted, however, that Noah must have eaten such food before or after the Flood, only that fresh edible carrion might have been in animal diets. Even if animals died and were tempting food for other animals, for all we know, animals avoided carrion, and went for fresh kills. Maybe carrion birds and carrion insects and worms got that way after the flood. Although that could imply a fairly quick form of evolution.  

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.
 
 

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 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.'

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 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.'

The other one is in bad shape and doesn’t work any more. The university of Missouri at Columbia and Chicago University might still have one. 
it is a ball (a 6 inch steel globe penny bank) that I had painted to be like way the Apollo astronauts photographed the earth from space. 
It hangs in mid air and you can take a stick or ruler to all sides and above and below and show that it is not attached to anything. You can even spin it and it keeps spinning on its North Pole / South Pole axis. Below the display is a sign that says “He hangs the earth upon nothing.” — Job 26:7. 
 
My dad often told the story of how some students would see it and wonder what the job number referred to.
it’s a little easier to guess how this one works. 

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.

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate:
It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.
I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant).
 
But you did say this:
Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts.
Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.

Exactly! it was no more relevant than when you asked who the first president of the Watch Tower Society was when no one else had brought that up. If anyone else wants to know, they can read a little more about him in the refereces cited in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Conley
He gave a lot of money to charities and missionary societies. Started a missionary home in Jerusalem. But his support for another Bible-study publication outside the Watchotwer apparently triggered Russell to speak out against that publication, and to tell Watch Tower readers not to buy it. And Conley was not mentioned again. Not even a notice of his death or funeral, which is something the Watchtower did for several other early supporters of the Watch Tower.
It's a simple matter to see that your information is false. I believe I have all the available court papers and commentaries about the case from neutral sources, opposing sources and supporting sources. She was in Australia when the judge made a ruling, and it wasn't about her statement. You might be thinking about the ruling over whether it was permissable for Mrs. Russell to bring up adultery and/or sexual misconduct in open court or not.
We can sometimes find out if something has any significance to anyone by seeing whether anyone gets upset by such information. I'm not saying that you would get upset, but some people do, and that MIGHT mean that they are giving too much importance to the reputation of a man. Then it could become a scriptural matter:
Galatians 2:6  But regarding those who seemed to be important+—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
There is a lot of Russell "worship" still going on among some today. Not so much Witnesses, but among some Bible Student groups who follow his writings.
Then you and I agree totally on that point.

I read the book. I don't think he ever mentions any of those meeting minutes, but he already knows and states the gist of the point about Russell having complete authority and final say about any decision, and that the board members, both editorial board and society officers, were basically just a legal formality. They had no real input into any of his decisions. Russell pretty much ran the Society by himself. If others helped, and we know that his wife had plenty of input, he didn't give them any credit publicly. I know we think of Rutherford as the most autocratic in this regard, but Rutherford seemed to allow quite a bit of leeway and input from those around him, even if his was the only name that would be put on the publications for most of his presidency. Russell did this early on too although most of those others who had writing input all left the Watch Tower Society within a few short years.

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.
 

(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.

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate:
It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.
I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant).
 
But you did say this:
Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts.
Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics