Inspired by the comments on the Jehova's Witness's answer on this.
On the site from which I hail it is a common practice to "subvert" questions that make an apparently (or obviously) false presumption, in order to provide an answer.
Q: What seafood does the OT forbid eating? I need to know because I'm a Baptist and I don't want to go to Hell.
A: Actually, you can eat whatever you want; Baptist doctrine holds that we are bound by the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant, and so we are permitted to consume any food provided we have faith that doing so is not offensive to God (citation) (continued explanation of how Baptists don't have to worry about the issue presented).
Is that kind of frame-change an acceptable answer here? (The frame being challenged here is that the OT food restrictions apply to the asker. The asker did not say "can Baptists each seafood?" the asker asked "What specific kinds of seafood is there a Biblical basis for not eating in the OT?". This question is absolutely fine, but it is an example of an XY problem.
This is the meta post pertaining to frame-challenges on RPG.SE. I expect the appropriate method of dealing with this for this site will be different, but that thread might be useful understanding what changing the frame of a question means and some situations in which it might be appropriate, as might this one.