Brotha, I highly respect you but I have to correct you. Nothing personal.
"4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb."
I'm sorry but that is a HUGE stretch to imply eating as in "diet". We have to go by the original Hebrew definition of the word. The Hebrew word for "eating" is 'okel'. In this context you cannot ignore the rest of the sentence which is "your count for the lamb". So this is obviously "meat" in relation to portion size, not "whether you want to or not". The choices are not Cain and Abel. It's Abel all the way. There was no vegetarian version of Passover with fruit juices squirted on the door posts. This is all allegorical reference to the sacrificial death of innocents to pay for the guilt of humans. You simply cannot get that from plants. Therefore, I see no reason to try and read vegetarianism or veganism into this text.
Usage of 'okel' in the KJV:
meat 18, food 16, eating 4, victuals 3, prey 2, mealtime 06256 1
As you can see "meat" was used interchangeably as "food". That's why when it said "to you it shall be for meat" it wasn't saying it was a replacement for literal meat, but rather it would be your "food". So you have to understand Hebrew as opposed to what you think God wanted, because it had to be communicated in a language that was primarily used by humans who ate both plants and animals. And like I said, these weren't primarily farmers. Nor where they able to ship many different kinds of plants and fruits and all that from different regions. So this is why most people grew grains and stuff to make bread. And the bread went with the meat and lentils and whatever else they could grow. A perfect example is Jacob and Esau. If there were any people who wanted to be vegan they would have been in such a small tiny fraction of a minority that they would not have been addressed by laws designed for the nation. And let's be real, I highly doubt any existed at all unless they had an allergy because its not like there was any health information in circulation that was against meat. Anything that came from God they assumed was righteous and good. And therefore if God had ordained the eating of meat but had specified and differentiated clean vs unclean, then they took that as healthy vs not healthy.
Let's talk about Nazarites.
Where did you get the idea that Nazarites didn't eat animal flesh?
7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.
Again, clean meats vs unclean meats were defined by the law. For this command to be issued against unclean meat and not ALL meat shows you that they were indeed allowed to eat meat. Also, one should understand that there were different types of Nazarites, including temporary vows. People could make their own vows and this was done all the time. That's why the guy killed his daughter because he vowed to sacrifice the first thing to greet him. But you're not going to have a commanded vow that contradicts the law. And even if someone chose to fast for a period of time they probably didn't choose a time that would conflict with the feast days. A fast is not the same thing as a dietary change. The fact that fasting is also part of the law shows that this is a desirable thing to do. But it also doesn't contradict the dietary laws.
If you click on the word "kid" you'll see the Hebrew word is 'g@diy' which is a young male goat. In other words, he brought his wife food for her to cook for them.
Isaiah 11:6-9 has nothing to do with diet. The rhetoric used here is bombastic. He will smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and his breath will slay the wicked. We both know this is rhetorical and not to be taken literally. What then follows is the same sort of over the top depiction of peace. The animals were basically an allegory of human tribes and nations and how they would live together in peace and not fight each other or hunt each other as prey. It's not literally saying that the animals would change and stop eating each other. While some animals can have a plant-based diet it is not possible for all animals to live on plants. Their whole digestive system cannot support this brand of human idealism. So while you can force a cat to eat vegan pet food you're not doing it a favor and animals in the wild could never get what they needed this way.
In fact, I have a cat and she started losing hair as a result of the wheat in most brands of cat food.
Many people say a lot of things. You can always find, especially online, a group that is a proponent of something, who also thinks it is the ideal that everyone should be doing. That's why, in many cases, they're doing it themselves. But people tend to see what they want to see and based their understanding of the world around them on what they want to be true. I personally wish that animals didn't have to kill each other. However, thinking about the balance of real life on this planet, rates of reproduction, etc. It is necessary and the idea that killing is wrong is a very easy idea to have when you're born on top of the food chain and can buy your fill of any diet known to man. So it's very much based on conditions.
If you lived in the desert, what farming are you doing? Are you eating grass? Can you get your nutrition from grass or even lettuce? Do fruit trees grow in every climate? How do you get all your vitamins without fruit? Many American pioneers died, unable to figure out what to eat in the Americas. The Thanksgiving holiday is a celebration of that collaboration with the natives that helped them to survive (so they could later take their land). So it's not as easy as you think it is. And so when the Israelites were around water, they fished. When they had land they could harvest, which didn't happen for years after the exodus, then they could finally grow diverse crops. But the main stay were the animals that could travel with them and reproduce more animals.
I don't know what else to tell you except this was an animal-based culture, not a plant based culture. And even their religion evolved, in part, out of that animal consumption foundation. This is why God appreciates the aroma of dead animal meat until he has enough of them overdoing it and not learning the lesson sacrifice was meant to teach them. This is why their greatest king was a shepherd and the disciples were fishers of men. This is why the patriarchs were wealthy based on the size of their flocks. Their wealth and culture centered around meat. Meat. This is how they could worship a golden calf. And it wasn't just them. They're just one example. Many ancient peoples formed their religious ideas around their survival. Different gods helped them to survive by helping their plants grow but this god wouldn't be worshiped in the desert. Jacob was knowledgeable enough to know exactly how to breed Laban's flocks to his own advantage. They knew animals like this because they ate them to survive.
If you want to investigate more you can further consider the interpretation of pharaoh's dream regarding the coming famine and how this also affected diet and what animals ate vs how much land was dedicated to farming and who owned the land and the farms vs cities. Consider all these things, both in Egypt and in rural communities. And consider the versatility of animals, how much meat can be produced from them vs plants, etc. Really think about how much land you would need to equal a single cow or goat and how these animals convert plants we don't eat into meat that the law considers "clean". It's a good topic with a lot to think about. But just because some vegans want to think there was some large vegan population in the bible in order to justify their own ideas... doesn't necessarily make it true.