Many Miles

AlanF would talk about Neo-Babylonian chronology until my eyes glazed and my ears were bleeding, and he'd still only be at the start of what he wanted to share. I'd have to open a bottle of fine wine and break off a piece of well-molded and stinky cheese to get him on another topic so I could rest.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281. That statement also got my attention back in 1981. My first thought to myself was, then we cannot depend on our own conclusions as "final" because they are equally based on secular chronology.

I recall the first time I read that in the Kingdom Come book. My first thought was to say to myself, everything said in that statement could be equally applied to our own chronology, its source material and interpretations. That was only my first thought!

You seem to have done a lot of work on this subject. If it is accepted that the 530 BCE date is as reliable as you say (and I have no reason to doubt what you say is true), my question would be are there any other historical events equally reliable in terms of chronology that would dispute our deduction of 607 BCE? My question is to measure veracity and to avoid confirmation bias.

I've not gotten into the nitty-gritty details of this subject to extent of others I've ran with in the past have (e.g., AlanF). But for probably more than 40 years I've pointed out that our 1914 teaching is dependent on our 607 teaching and the 607 teaching is squarely dependent on secular records part of archeological findings. Of all these secular findings a primary question I've asked over and over again is what makes one more reliable than the next so that one presents a pivotal date and the others not? So far I've seen no evidence suggesting our chronological conclusions related to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is sound.

Thanks for making me feel my own idiocy with even more intensity! I've been idling in the background for too long, and apparently it's showing. But I like idle!

Wait. What? BTK59 is a troll? I've been engaging with a troll for a few days? Guess I don't get out enough.

Decay begins at death. Decay escalates to a point where flesh becomes inedible for humans yet still edible for other creatures. Some animals, like maggots, thrive on putrified flesh. Eating flesh is a sort of food from creation.

No. When I've spoken of carrion I've used the term in reference to edible flesh of a dead animal.

This subject reminds me of an incident from probably 35-40 years ago. In very sincere, humble yet solemn form, an older sister approached me to report that her husband had eaten some birthday cake that had been baked by his workplace peers in celebration of his birthday, and worse he was refusing to come forth and confess this sin on his own so it fell to her to report it. As she put it, she knew a judicial committee needed to confront him. (Disclaimer: we don't hold judicial hearings over a person simply opting to celebrate their birthday) To make her feel heard, I asked whether her husband participated in the celebration event. She said he had not participated in the party but his peers had wrapped up leftovers from the cake after his birthday party, and gave the leftover cake to him in tinfoil, which he brought home. He ate some of the cake for a late night snack that night. This was his sin. I don't need to go further into the experience, but this was an incident that did not involve a person engaging in any celebratory birthday event, but they did eat some perfectly good food left over from a celebratory birthday event. One should not confuse perfectly good food with an event, unless eating the food is part and parcel to the event. But weak minds do sometimes confuse the two as though equal.

I've not spoken of eating "spoiled meat." That is a red herring you keep interjecting for your own reasons. I've spoken of eating edible meat. A direct evidence of eating edible meat prior to the flood is God's express permission to Noah the he could gather, stow away and eat from every sort of food eaten. (Gen 6:21) If you reject that animals have always lived and died, and that the decomposition and metabolism of edible remains is something God created as part of earth's natural ecosystem then I'm afraid that you're rejecting the post-Eden written testimony that we can and should learn from God's testimony of creation. (Ps 19:1-4) Otherwise, we have the written creation account of Eden where God gave humans dominion over animals and all the earth. This dominion is what offered use of animals and earth's resources as needed, including as food. Are you familiar with anhydrous aluminum silicate? How about sodium chloride? The former is better known as kaolin and the latter as table salt. Both are compounds of natural earth elements, and neither is vegetation. Because God gave humans dominion over the earth then humans have always been completely free to use these natural earth compounds, including eating them. One is useful for temporary symptomatic relief of mild, moderate and severe dysentery. The other is an essential nutrient that helps in the physiology maintaining balance of bodily fluids and our nervous system. The chemical composition of our bodies requires salt intake. Presumably you don't think eating compounds of the earth is prohibited because they are not vegetation. I don't know what you mean with that statement. Insofar as I know, I've not said or intimated different things about dominion. Why is it inaccurate to believe God permitted killing within Eden? The Bible says of animals that they are naturally caught and destroyed. Presumably that which is natural is that which was created, and creation was a precursor to Eden. In Eden animals outnumbered humans. When an animal died are we to think other animals "respectfully buried" the remains? A casual glance at the natural (created) world tells me it's more likely that other animals began the decomposition process by eating the edible flesh. Even if an animal is buried, animals living in the earth are still going to eat and metabolize the edible flesh of a dead carcass, whether biological or botanical. Creation was a precursor to Eden. Divinely inspired post-Eden written text (Ps. 19:1-4) instructs use to learn from the testimony of the natural world as God's creation. Hence the post-Eden natural world testifies to created conditions even in Eden. Nature testifies that since their creation animals have always lived and died. The only reason we have to think a human can live without dying is because the same inspired text tells us so. If we accept one biblical tenet as true then we should except the other tenet as true. Post-Eden nature still testifies to God's creation. Who says the statement of Genesis 6:21 speaks to something that was not always true, including in Eden? You? If we follow Genesis 1:29 as a strict guideline then, as created, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat water, salt, or feed their offspring breast milk because none of those are vegetation yet all are essential to health. Such a prohibition is so absurd that it can only mean Genesis 1:29 is not and never has been a comprehensive statement of food humans were created to eat. If you want a comprehensive statement of food humans were prohibited from eating as created, then the Genesis account tells you what the food was. The tree of knowledge. That was the sole food prohibition placed on perfect humans. I'm not here to persuade or convince you, or anyone else. I'm just sharing.

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat. I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. "And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) "...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter) Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden. Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water. Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning. Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh? We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion. No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

But you said: Both can't be true. Terms like "whatever," "under its jurisdiction," and "has the power to legislate/decide" are sweeping. Either they are true as stated or they are false. You've found yourself trying to justify something with rationalization. I see no need to keep responding to this, and I won't. I've also given up on your teacher in California responding on the life and death issue of the society's position on blood that is equally inexplicable. It is no wonder that since it's first mention in 1944 active JWs have fought against it, even admittedly so as witnessed in the society's own publications and letters to elders.

In very simple terms, what you write here is a permission slip for the society to teach whatever it wants to teach under the cape you call " jurisdiction". It leaves "her" to teach Judaism if she wishes, because of "her" "power to legislate/decide." Let readers make of that what they will. There is no way to falsify that, which makes it useless as premise for sake of a sound conclusion. If that's what you believe, I leave you with it. I have no need to respond to it. As a JW, or any other capacity.

It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness. Well, based on what you say what do we find? The society teaches that in order to be righteous a person must abide by its position on blood. (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006126?q=respect+the+sanctity+of+blood+and+to+conform+themselves+to+God’s+righteous+rulings+concerning+this+vital+matter&p=par ) You can see yourself from the linked article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290) that the society wholly depends on text of Judaic Law to underpin its position against transfusion of donor blood. If we accept what you write above, this position then stands condemned.

And what is the following if not judaization? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 In relation to the question of using human donor blood for transfusion medicine, every bit of the answer given to the question asked demands acquiescence to Judaic law since nowhere else in holy script do we find anything remotely addressing human donor blood. There is no extra-Judaic scriptural text remotely addressing human donor blood, let alone allogenic transplantation of such blood. It was Judaistic teachers Paul warned about who insisted on invoking provisions of Judaic law that no worshiper of God outside Jews had ever been held to for their worship to be accepted by God. Cornelius was no more required to bow to demands of circumcision than he was required to bow to abstain from "any sort of blood" as required under Judaic law. Cornelius need only abstain from the sort of blood God had stipulated prior to Judaic law, namely the sort of blood spelled out to Noah after the flood, which was not human donor blood.

Just to clarify, when you say: "Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8." Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"? The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience. Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

I would agree that any mature person should not be denied baptism. But I must ask, what is "scriptural maturity"?

When it comes to "one of the most serious" decisions (marrying), the society says: "Christians want to wait to get married until they are mature..." (Ref Jan 15, 2001 Watchtower) So for "one of the most serious" decisions of marrying, the advice is to wait until you are mature. When it comes to baptism, the society calls this "the most serious decision" an individual can make. (Ref June 15, 2012 Watchtower)

Speak plainly. Does your comment above yield that it was permitted for humans to eat milk though, as you said, there was nothing said about milk? Birds, scavenger mammal, maggots, bugs and worms are all part of the animal kingdom, yet as you suggested earlier, there was nothing said about animals eating meat. Yet carrion is meat. Hence, despite nothing be said explicitly about eating things other than vegetation, other foods were eaten other than vegetation and eating these was neither contrary to creation nor was doing so sin. It sounds like you agree that meat was a food eaten prior to the flood. According to you, carrion birds, scavenger mammals, maggots, bugs and worms (all these are animals) were eating meat long before the flood.

That's precisely how we learn and grow.