Vegan and vegetarian brothers and sisters

[Naturale]

On 7/23/2019 at 2:56 PM, ijsvogel said:

In a wonderful conversation between Jehovah and Job, our Creator tells this about his own creations: Can you hunt prey for a lion Or satisfy the appetites of young lions 40 When they crouch in their lairs Or lie in ambush in their dens? (Job 38:39,40). And what about  the eagle? Job 39:30 Its young sip up blood;And wherever the slain are, there it is.”

 

Would this conversation be logical if Jehovah did create a lion just to eat grass? Or an eagle to eat some leaves? 

 

Job had only experienced and observed  conditions on earth since Eden, just like we do with animals etc.    so the point of Jehovah saying these words to Job was that if man stands in awe of these mighty, fearsome and untamable creatures, how should Job himself feel about their Creator.  He made Job see the tremendous gulf between God and man, forcefully reminding Job of the wisdom and power of Jehovah.     The issue with Job had nothing to do with Jehovah's purpose back then in Eden or with the future restoration .

 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Naturale

[Naturale]

On 7/23/2019 at 2:56 PM, ijsvogel said:

Even when a lion should eat meat in paradise doesn't mean there is no peace in paradise. There will be peace between people and between people and animals. The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb,And with the young goat the leopard will lie down,And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together;And a little boy will lead them. So when a wild animal is nearby people and their domestic animals, he isn't a wild animal for a while. Maybe he will hunt for prey after that visit to us 😊. 

I read in one of our books recently      “It would be inconsistent for God to inspire such a prophecy as that of Isaiah 11:6-9, and Ezekiel 34:25 and Hosea 2:18 to have only a figurative or spiritual meaning and not have a true copy of these things in actual life, as though the literal fulfillment were an impossible ideal.”

[jayrtom]

On 7/19/2019 at 3:12 PM, ZDR said:

Question then: According to our video last summer, the mongoose has a layer of fur designed to be resistant against the bite of a cobra. Why did Jehovah design the mongoose this way if those two creatures were never intended to attack each other in the first place? Or do you think this was an ability animals adapted to after Adam’s rebellion?

Can you be more specific on where exactly was said on the video that the layer of fur was designed to be resistant against the bite of a cobra?

 

On 7/19/2019 at 5:07 PM, Old said:

And since Jehovah saw that it is good, who are we to argue?

Dust mites need to live too!

Interestingly, right before the Bible says that, it says what the animal food was... who are we to argue?

Ge 1:30,31

Quote

And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life,* I have given all green vegetation for food.”+ And it was so.

31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good.+And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

 

 

On 7/20/2019 at 4:54 PM, Hope said:

but we never see a lion resting with a wildebeest in those illustrations. 

This is from 2016

 

 

On 7/21/2019 at 11:05 PM, Old said:

I have had  trouble wrapping my mind around this: man sinned and for that reason animals started eating each other.

No, man sinned and everything stayed the same. Only after the flood there was a transformation (we don't know any specifics on this but there was something, otherwise why would Jehovah change his commands to to men?)

Also of note is that in the covenant Jehovah made with men he clearly includes the animals. So it it reasonable to conclude that any change affected the animals also

 

Gen 8:1-3; 8-11

Quote

God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.+ 2

 A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand.*+ 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you.+ Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you.+  

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I am now establishing my covenant with you+ and with your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature* that is with you, the birds, the animals, and all the living creatures of the earth with you, all those that came out of the ark—every living creature of the earth.+ 11

 

 

Quote

Apparently I have never realized how simple the truth can be when we are enlightened by God's Word.

Speaking of God's word, I could use the chapter and verse, so I can spoof this to others.

??????

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by jayrtom

[Hope]

@jayrtom that's a domestic bull.. not a wildebeest. Also- that's an artist's depiction because most of those animals don't live near each other at all.

[ijsvogel]

3 hours ago, Naturale said:

I read in one of our books recently      “It would be inconsistent for God to inspire such a prophecy as that of Isaiah 11:6-9, and Ezekiel 34:25 and Hosea 2:18 to have only a figurative or spiritual meaning and not have a true copy of these things in actual life, as though the literal fulfillment were an impossible ideal.”

Of course there will be a literal fulfillment of this prophecy. No doubt about it 😊. You might find it interesting to read what is said about this in Insight on the Scriptures :

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002749#h=13:722-13:1145

Quote

Under Messiah’s rulership, however, there comes to be a greater fulfillment of the restoration prophecies. Persons who may at one time have been of a beastly, animalistic, vicious disposition come to be at peace with more docile fellow humans and do not seek to do them harm or injury. Both in a literal and a figurative sense, peace will come to exist between lions and domestic animals

So there will be peace between wild animals and livestock. Maybe (just my speculation) a lion will hunt for prey in paradise, but he wouldn't harm us or our animals. That speculation is also based on this Question of readers:

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991688#h=1:0-13:54

Quote

The refreshing peace in the animal creation prophesied at Isaiah 11:6-9 will be permanent. But a careful rendering of Isaiah 11:6 makes it clear that such animals will not be together constantly. Yet, such animals might still have distinct habitats. Some animals are suited to the forests, others to the plains, still others to the coastal regions or mountains. Even at the time of the original Paradise, God spoke of ‘domestic animals and wild beasts. 

 

[jayrtom]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

@jayrtom that's a domestic bull.. not a wildebeest. Also- that's an artist's depiction because most of those animals don't live near each other at all.

And the Bear, and the Leopard... Aren't they all in the same set?

 

Off course it's an artist depiction, but not an artist interpretation of the text in Is ch 11 to which the image is related. As you know our images are well thought before entering into production and every detail is there for a reason, it's not a random thing. Also the images are approved by the FDS and so represent what they want to convey by it and not what the artist wanted. I think it's most like the process of making an original music as we learned recently (I thought it was someone that made the music and submitted for approval but its much more complex than that)

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001606?q=pictures+publications&p=par#h=42

During the past 35 years, I have also served on a committee to judge the work of other artists. Pictures that I like express emotion. To me a picture is good when it leaves me with a good impression, causing me to feel inner peace. I greatly admire the pictures that appear in the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses,

which accomplish their purpose of faithfully representing the message of the Bible.

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102001118?q=pictures+publications&p=par#h=10

Unlike Jehovah, we cannot communicate by means of visions. Yet, many thought-provoking pictures appear in the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Use them to help interested people visualize the earthly Paradise, promised in God’s Word. On a home Bible study, you might draw a student’s attention to a picture that is related to what you are studying and ask him to tell you what he sees. It is noteworthy that when certain visions were given to the prophet Amos, Jehovah asked: “What are you seeing, Amos?” (Amos 7:7, 8; 8:1, 2) You can ask similar questions as you direct the attention of people to pictures that are designed as visual teaching aids.

The pictures are supposed to be visual aids. If what is in that picture doesn't represent what we see, it isn't a visual aid but rather a visual complication!

 

I understand perfectly why it's easy to think that animals were carnivorous like they are now (and consequently will continue to be). All logic seems to point to that and I would believe it to if the opposite was not printed in the bible and our publications...

As it is, I just can't understand...

 

The bible is crystal clear on mentioning the diet for men and animals

The insight on the scriptures also crystal clear on confirming it

Some say that, because it seems illogical, that information on IT must be outdated... But the Bible? it passed from literal to symbolic? So what about the other things mentioned in the same context on the chapter? Are those symbolic too? was the diet for men symbolic too? So why mentioning after the flood that men could now eat meat if he already ate it?

We shouldn't be guided by human logic, also not guided by sight but by faith! It's hard to understand why animals began to eat each other but it hard to understand why God changed the diet for men but the fact is that he did. 

We shouldn't forget that men and animal are one ecosystem not two. so a change in men's diet have necessarily changes in the rest of the ecosystem as a whole - maybe that's an explanation or maybe not, but it really doesn't matter the why or the how. What matters is that the bible says what it says...

 

Anyway this is a recent quote (2014) from the slave and it still says the same as the Insight did:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102013536#h=5

We will be very happy! In Paradise, people will not fight or go to war anymore. Everyone will love one another. Nobody will get sick or die. The blind will see, the deaf will hear, and those who cannot walk will be able to run and jump. Everyone will have plenty to eat.

And animals will be friends with one another and with us. People who have died will come back to life.

 

 

[Hope]

4 hours ago, ijsvogel said:

Of course there will be a literal fulfillment of this prophecy. No doubt about it 😊. You might find it interesting to read what is said about this in Insight on the Scriptures :

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002749#h=13:722-13:1145

So there will be peace between wild animals and livestock. Maybe (just my speculation) a lion will hunt for prey in paradise, but he wouldn't harm us or our animals. That speculation is also based on this Question of readers:

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991688#h=1:0-13:54

 

That's what I always imagined because that's what the scriptures say.  Most of the concern of the people at the time that scripture was written was about how to protect their own domestic animals from wild ones (that's generally true today, as well - ranchers/farmers don't care what wolves and lions eat as long as it's not their cattle and sheep.  That's for *their* use! 😉 ).

[Hope]

4 hours ago, jayrtom said:

And the Bear, and the Leopard... Aren't they all in the same set?

 

Off course it's an artist depiction, but not an artist interpretation of the text in Is ch 11 to which the image is related. As you know our images are well thought before entering into production and every detail is there for a reason, it's not a random thing. Also the images are approved by the FDS and so represent what they want to convey by it and not what the artist wanted. I think it's most like the process of making an original music as we learned recently (I thought it was someone that made the music and submitted for approval but its much more complex than that)

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001606?q=pictures+publications&p=par#h=42

 

 

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102001118?q=pictures+publications&p=par#h=10

 

 

The pictures are supposed to be visual aids. If what is in that picture doesn't represent what we see, it isn't a visual aid but rather a visual complication!

 

I understand perfectly why it's easy to think that animals were carnivorous like they are now (and consequently will continue to be). All logic seems to point to that and I would believe it to if the opposite was not printed in the bible and our publications...

As it is, I just can't understand...

 

The bible is crystal clear on mentioning the diet for men and animals

The insight on the scriptures also crystal clear on confirming it

Some say that, because it seems illogical, that information on IT must be outdated... But the Bible? it passed from literal to symbolic? So what about the other things mentioned in the same context on the chapter? Are those symbolic too? was the diet for men symbolic too? So why mentioning after the flood that men could now eat meat if he already ate it?

We shouldn't be guided by human logic, also not guided by sight but by faith! It's hard to understand why animals began to eat each other but it hard to understand why God changed the diet for men but the fact is that he did. 

We shouldn't forget that men and animal are one ecosystem not two. so a change in men's diet have necessarily changes in the rest of the ecosystem as a whole - maybe that's an explanation or maybe not, but it really doesn't matter the why or the how. What matters is that the bible says what it says...

 

Anyway this is a recent quote (2014) from the slave and it still says the same as the Insight did:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102013536#h=5

 

 

 

 

I don't think bears and leopards live in the same areas, either.

 

As for the other items in green:  Yes - the newer instruction from Jehovah on His creatures' diets is that they can eat what they want (as has been stated in countless threads here, we have no idea what sort of instructions Adam and Eve would've received had they not sinned; wearing clothes has been a hot topic, right? 😉 ). 

 

If Jehovah actually changed the physiology and dietary needs of millions of animals at that time (given them super speed, eyes that see more to the side than front, camouflage, long teeth, razor sharp claws, incredible hunting skills, the need for taurine, etc), that's certainly His purview.  It seems strange that He'd have to do that after He pronounced it all "good" in the first place, but it's fine with me.

 

[Naturale]

Genesis 1:29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.+ 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life,* I have given all green vegetation for food.”+ 

•  

[McKay]

21 minutes ago, Naturale said:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.+ 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life,* I have given all green vegetation for food.”+ 

•  

But does it say ONLY green vegetation? I wonder what happened to the carcasses of animals that died. If "everything moving on the earth" includes bacteria, insects, and birds then would those dead corpses just rot in the sun? How would they be disposed? Isn't it possible that the animals' daily diet consisted of green vegetation but they could also serve as scavengers when they came across a dead animal? Wouldn't that explain why some animals were designed with teeth capable of tearing meat, to dispose of dead animals?

 

I have no problem with that. Again, the larger point is that there was and will be peace and harmony between humans and animals and between animals as well, at least while they are alive.

[Hope]

37 minutes ago, ZDR said:

But does it say ONLY green vegetation? I wonder what happened to the carcasses of animals that died. If "everything moving on the earth" includes bacteria, insects, and birds then would those dead corpses just rot in the sun? How would they be disposed? Isn't it possible that the animals' daily diet consisted of green vegetation but they could also serve as scavengers when they came across a dead animal? Wouldn't that explain why some animals were designed with teeth capable of tearing meat, to dispose of dead animals?

 

I have no problem with that. Again, the larger point is that there was and will be peace and harmony between humans and animals and between animals as well, at least while they are alive.

There are creatures who are specially designed to eat carrion. Everything from their physical appearance to their special digestion allows them to deal with the biohazard that are dead bodies.  Some meat-eating animals will eat carrion as a last resort... but it is not their normal food and it can make them sick.  For all current carnivorous animals, I don't see how there would be enough dead animals lying around to feed growing animal populations - that's why most of them hunt.

 

Bacteria will certainly continue as it always has. Decomposition starts within about four minutes after death -- that's micro-organisms and bacteria going to work and that doesn't stop 'til the body's gone.  

[Old]

7 hours ago, Hope said:

There are creatures who are specially designed to eat carrion. Everything from their physical appearance to their special digestion allows them to deal with the biohazard that are dead bodies.  Some meat-eating animals will eat carrion as a last resort... but it is not their normal food and it can make them sick.  For all current carnivorous animals, I don't see how there would be enough dead animals lying around to feed growing animal populations - that's why most of them hunt.

 

Bacteria will certainly continue as it always has. Decomposition starts within about four minutes after death -- that's micro-organisms and bacteria going to work and that doesn't stop 'til the body's gone.  

...and Jehovah siad it ws good!

[Naturale]

7 hours ago, Old said:

...and Jehovah siad it ws good!

Good to keep the context though!

 

29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.+ 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life,* I have given all green vegetation for food.”+ And it was so.

31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good.+And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

[Naturale]

16 hours ago, ZDR said:

But does it say ONLY green vegetation? I wonder what happened to the carcasses of animals that died. 

The Bible specifically says that then animals were given“all green vegetation for food.” They did not eat other animals. 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Naturale

[Naturale]

Adaptation

In connection with camouflage, did God design the animals that way because he purposed for them to live off one another, and thus they needed help to survive? It is of interest to note that when God created man and woman, the animals had no fear of them, or of one another. The Bible tells why, stating that God gave man and beast “green vegetation for food.”—Gen. 1:29, 30.

However, after man’s rebellion, earthly creation became chaotic. Man lost his loving dominion over the animals. As a concession for his survival, man was authorized to eat animal flesh as food after the Flood. (Gen. 9:2-4) The animals, too, coming into chaos, began to live off one another. And since God had created a vast variety of features to make animal life interesting, many animals would be able to adapt to their new situation by using certain features to assist in their survival.

Mankind has done much the same. It certainly was not God’s purpose for man to kill his fellowman and even cannibalize at times. But man, too, has the ability to adapt to new circumstances for his survival, even using camouflage in wartime.

In God’s new order, man and animals will once again come into the peaceful condition God purposed. Then neither will be in fear of sudden death, or have to worry about an inadequate food supply.—Isa. 11:9; Hos. 2:18; Rev. 21:4, 5.

g81 10/8 pp. 25-27

[Naturale]

19 minutes ago, Naturale said:

Good to keep the context though!

 

29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.+ 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life,* I have given all green vegetation for food.”+ And it was so.

31 After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good.+And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

When God designed humans ... He made them to be at peace with the animals, with no violence or killing for food among animals or man. 

• g82 10/8 pp. 9-13

[Thesauron]

When God designed humans ... He made them to be at peace with the animals, with no violence or killing for food among animals or man. 

• g82 10/8 pp. 9-13

I’m not too sure about that he didn’t design us to eat meat. Our bodies are well designed to eat some amount of meat, and he gave it to man to eat meat. He accepted it as sacrifice from us to him.

We will have to wait and see if he in paradise will somehow revert the diets of man and beasts.

[McKay]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

The Bible specifically says that then animals were given“all green vegetation for food.” They did not eat other animals. 

 

Then please address the rest of my post. If ALL moving things were given ONLY green vegetation to eat, then what would happen to dead animals? ALL moving things would include insects and bacteria. They too ONLY ate vegetation? What about maggots? I understand that animals might not eat each other while alive, but doesn't it make sense that SOMETHING would have to eat up animals that died in order to keep the earth clean?

[Meditate!]

1 minute ago, ZDR said:

Then please address the rest of my post. If ALL moving things were given ONLY green vegetation to eat, then what would happen to dead animals? ALL moving things would include insects and bacteria. They too ONLY ate vegetation? What about maggots? I understand that animals might not eat each other while alive, but doesn't it make sense that SOMETHING would have to eat up animals that died in order to keep the earth clean?

They're is a balance somewhere and I don't know where it is.. 

 

Other animals /insects do a fabulous job of clearing up after deaths etc. 

 

Others are predatory I have mentioned. Spiders actively trap live stuff.. They won't eat green vegetation only, will they? 

 

Again the bigger the mammal the more emotional it gets. Where will the acceptable predatory action stop and start? I dont know. Some plants kill live insects.. Venus fly trap is just one. Will this change too. 

 

This is not as simple as made out... And no I don't see leopards chasing other animals to death /kill. 

 

I just don't know where the predatory action cut off, in the eco system, is going to be placed in the NS

[Hope]

I genuinely don't have a problem with the predator/ prey set up. Most animals don't hunt where humans are so I've never *seen* any such hunts- except if my cat catches a mouse. That earns all my praise!  Well done, kitty!

 

Of course, whatever situation Jehovah has in mind for future times will be better than any of us can imagine. I'll just be more shocked if lions and sharks start eating only "green vegetation" than if they continue as they are.

 

And I really like eating meat, myself..

Edited July 27, 2019 by Hope

[McKay]

3 hours ago, Alan said:

They're is a balance somewhere and I don't know where it is.. 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Hope said:

Of course, whatever situation Jehovah has in mind for future times will be better than any of us can imagine.

I think the problem here is that the scriptures are giving us just enough information to have faith without covering every little detail. I think the broad view of Isaiah's prophecy is: There will be peace between animals and humans. But that doesn't address certain obvious and logical issues raised by a "perfectly literal in every case" approach. Yes, Genesis says that every moving creature was given green vegetation to eat. Okay, let's analyze that. Taken literally, that means great white sharks and jellyfish eat green vegetation because they are moving things right? Is there enough seaweed in the oceans to sustain all that life? What about whales that die? Do their carcases just pile up and pollute the water because those other animals can only eat green vegetation? Dung beetles by their very name do not eat green vegetation do they? What about fungi who feed off dead leaves? Are those dead leaves "green" too? The point is, Jehovah has an order and a place for all living things. Yes, their predominant diet was meant to be be sustained by vegetation. But should we think that's the ONLY thing they COULD eat, that they were not permitted or able to eat anything else? Such thinking does not seem practical or logical, and both of those qualities are ones Jehovah possesses in abundance. Both sides in this discussion might find ourselves surprised by the facts once Jehovah reveals them.

[jayrtom]

14 hours ago, Old said:

...and Jehovah siad it ws good!

Didn't you notice that the bible states that after mentioning what was the food for men and animals? don't take account of the bible just where it doesn't contradict your idea

 

6 hours ago, Thesauron said:

I’m not too sure about that he didn’t design us to eat meat. Our bodies are well designed to eat some amount of meat, and he gave it to man to eat meat. He accepted it as sacrifice from us to him.

We will have to wait and see if he in paradise will somehow revert the diets of man and beasts.

We don't have to wait because we know that already. We were not designed to eat meat. That's a FACT

 

4 hours ago, ZDR said:

Then please address the rest of my post. If ALL moving things were given ONLY green vegetation to eat, then what would happen to dead animals? ALL moving things would include insects and bacteria. They too ONLY ate vegetation? What about maggots? I understand that animals might not eat each other while alive, but doesn't it make sense that SOMETHING would have to eat up animals that died in order to keep the earth clean?

we don't know the answer to those questions. Why do you think we should know? The bible tell us that the food for animals was vegetation. But the bible doesn't tell us the answers to those question. It's as simple as that

 

Brothers and sisters, if it's hard for you to believe what the bible states about this and how the slave interpretes this, just keep it to yourself because coming here commenting that the FDS is wrong is just very hard to read and accept!!!

[Thesauron]

13 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

We don't have to wait because we know that already. We were not designed to eat meat. That's a FACT

What makes you think that?

Edited July 27, 2019 by Thesauron

[McKay]

3 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

Brothers and sisters, if it's hard for you to believe what the bible states about this and how the slave interpretes this, just keep it to yourself because coming here commenting that the FDS is wrong is just very hard to read and accept!!!

You just said the Bible doesn't provide the answers to the questions I raised. That's why we're discussing it here. No one is defying the FDS. We understand the official position and go with it. But even the FDS doesn't know every detail.

 

To answer your previous question about my statement about the mongoose, I ask you to revisit that video on JWB. The last sentence of the presentation about the mongoose says, "the mongoose was endowed with defenses and abilities that allow it to fearlessly fight and defeat this snake." Endowed by whom? Doesn't that indicate that Jehovah GAVE these creatures these abilities? Isn't that WHY we watched this video, to show how Jehovah gave animals the abilities to be courageous? Weren't we encouraged to acquire faith by seeing how Jehovah provided them and can also provide us with courage? Watch that entire video again and ask, why did Jehovah give animals these abilities if they were not ever going to use them?

 

[McKay]

7 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

What makes you think that?

That's a fact according to the health wisdom of this world.

 

@jayrtomBut here's another (scriptural) fact: Jesus ate meat. Why would he do that if his body wasn't designed to eat meat? Nutritional advice CAN be influenced by social and political elements of this world. We need to be careful not to conflate what man "knows" with our knowledge of Jehovah. Yes, we were given vegetation to eat. Yes, we will likely return to that. Yes, it's even possible that many of the predator/prey relationships may be undone. But why us it so hard to imagine that Jehovah can still allow animals to eat dead flesh without compromising his promises? Can't both things be possible?

Edited July 27, 2019 by ZDR