Genesis 6:21 and pre-flood food?

[Pudgy]

It is quite obvious to me why he will not answer the question about milk. His arguments are always based on fallacious premises that have no valid standing in reality, and it’s very simple to pull the pin And have his entire chain of logic unravel.

…. and have his entire chain of logic unravel.

He knows this, and that’s why he will not answer the question about milk.

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

You can easily deduce the answer to your question based on your own actions and behavior. While the question may appear to be straightforward, it is within your capabilities to find the simple answer through common sense. However, the complexity arises when considering the concept of "nursing" in the context of other women nursing children who are not their own. In this spiritual sense, your seemingly simple question becomes more intricate and profound.

It is highly unlikely to question Eve's capability to breastfeed. It is highly probable that, after Seth's birth, other women nursed children over time.

Was there any spiritual nourishment provided to the early settlers, like the milk of God that the first parents had rejected due to disobedience? 

Even a dog without education could provide answers to these questions.

Just to be clear, George, I understand by what you write above to that you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

Is my understanding correct on that matter?

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

Could it be that you and the other person are actually one and the same? Instead of asking the question, why not provide an answer yourself, Mr. Pudgy?

LOL. If you suspect Pudby and I are one and the same then you'd recognize I've already given my answer to the question of pre-flood humans eating milk way, way back near the beginning of this discussion! The question was presented to you so see if you knew the answer, or would answer it if you do.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

Indeed, it is unfortunate to observe that ignorance prevails among certain individuals, overpowering their ability to reason.

So does this  mean that of your response above means you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

 

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

How do you manage to equate a mother's breast with spiritual nourishment?

I have nowhere equated a mother's breast milk with spiritual nourishment.

I request whether your response above means you AGREE that it was okay for early humans to feed their babies milk. (To be clear, I'm talking about literal milk from mammary glands and not spiritual nourishment that people  might speak of as "milk".)

[Matthew9969]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:21 PM, Pudgy said:

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

At this point its best to turn it into carrion luggage.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

At this point its best to turn it into carrion luggage.

Lest we forget, the first set of outerwear God provided humans was said to be "skins". Presumably, of an animal that was dead before the skin was removed to serve as clothing.

[Many Miles]

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

From my perspective, it appears that there are numerous misunderstandings regarding the definition.

car·ri·on

[ˈkerēən]

 

NOUN

1. the decaying flesh of dead animals: 

    

   Animal fur (skins) are after the animal is skinned by humans. What implications does this have for fallacy, logic, and interpretation? When it comes to animals, skinning is a whole different story.

It's good to define terms for sake of a discussion.

From my part, what I've been speaking of is dead carcasses that when alive were animals. From there, for the most part, my use of "carrion" was shorthand for those dead carcasses.

- It still remains the case that dead carcasses were a sort of food eaten prior to the flood.

- It also still remains the case that Noah was told to put some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Is it possible that the Nephilim practiced cannibalism?

Possibilities don't make for very good premises. Possibilities are endless. For premises used in a logical scriptural argument, we should stick to what we have evidence of.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Perhaps humans imitated this behavior with other humans or even animals before the understanding of fire. However, I highly doubt that such behavior or attitude would have been allowed onto God's Ark. I believe that the idea behind God's intention was to eliminate all forms of evil from humanity, including any brutal or animalistic tendencies inherited from the animal kingdom. It is important to remember that the story of Noah's Ark is centered around God's plan to preserve a righteous remnant and rid the world of wickedness. The flood was intended to cleanse the earth of evil and start afresh with Noah and his family, who were deemed righteous by God. The purpose was to preserve a new, morally upright generation. 

If carrion had been part of that scenario, those specific animals would have continued their instinctual behavior inside the Ark. Although the Bible doesn't provide this specific account, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on such details. 

I just want to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that you asked the question. Instead, I'm emphasizing that the notion of deteriorating meat can be influenced by multiple factors, not just a single one.

God has, to my knowledge, never had aversion of humans eating meat of animals as though doing so was wrong or contrary to His will.

This discussion is addressing pre-flood food.

God told Noah to bring some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals. That's God's word. Not mine. If you want to challenge God's word feel free. But it's His words you'd be challenging. Not mine.

If we accept God's word for what it says, then, as the Bible goes onto say in the very next sentence, "Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so." (Gen 6:21)

We know animal carcasses dead of natural cause were a sort of food eaten, both prior to and after the flood. After the flood God held no aversion to non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating this very sort of food. So men like Elihu, Job and Cornelius were free to eat this sort of food. God even arranged that this sort of food could be purchased from a Jew specifically to use it as food eat it. (Deut 14:21)

Hence:

- It still remains the case that dead carcasses were a sort of food eaten prior to the flood.

- It also still remains the case that Noah was told to put some of every sort of food eaten onto the ark to serve as food for himself and the animals.

[Pudgy]

Pay attention, as there will be a test later involving the nautical term “Keelhaul”.

If you are in charge of provisions on a trans-Atlantic voyage from Ireland to the Americas in an old wooden sailing ship … a trip that could take a month or two … and the Captain says take all kinds of food on board … the decks and cargo holds will be filled with dozens or hundreds of cages with live animals as well as food for them, and great wooden casks of drinking water.

There was no refrigeration back then, so as the trip went along, the animals …. chickens, turtles, sheep, pigs, rabbits, and more would be slaughtered as needed for food.  

Even better than vegetables that start dying when they are separated from the plant.

They were not thought of as cargo, because they were never intended to reach shore.

You could have 532 different live animals on board, CATAGORIZED AS “FOOD”.

I have read they even used to do this on warships. I have seen this in several movies.

The Bible DOES NOT SAY that there was carrion on the Ark, and there is no need to make that up … unless of course you have a runaway imagination and are trying to enhance something you said previously that you realize later makes no sense at all.

[Pudgy]

6 hours ago, George88 said:

Could it be that you and the other person are actually one and the same? Instead of asking the question, why not provide an answer yourself, Mr. Pudgy?

It is a waste to explain the obvious to the clueless.

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

It is a waste to explain the obvious to the clueless.

100%