JW Insider

Sometimes, just for fun, I sometimes try to predict the responses of the more easily predictable participants, and put it in white on white text to show my oldest son what I was guessing. You can just take your mouse and highlight the blank text after the last sentence. In this case, you had two responses. I missed the first one about needing to supply an event, but I hit the second one right on target. In case your mouse highlight thing doesn't work I'll show you what I had typed: In this case, of course, m.o. means modus operandi. I just meant that the usual thing to do instead of answering a question is to try to "poison the well" of astronomical evidence by associating it with an apostate. In this case, an apostate who was disfellowshipped specifically for sharing his research with other Witnesses instead of keeping it to himself as he was told to do. For the record, of course, no one has to produce a specific event to attach a BCE year to a specific year of a king's reign. If you know someone reigned for 43 years and you know the BCE date for year 7 is, then you know also know year 17, and 18, and 19, and 20. He could have been asleep the entire year, or insane and eating grass the entire year, or conquering Tyre for all we know. If you know that I'm 66, and you don't know any specific event in my life during 1968, it doesn't mean I didn't exist in 1968. Still, I can always change the question but I think you will either say you don't know or you will be otherwise just as evasive as you were with this last one: What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year? (Or, you can use his 16th or his 14th or his 25th, 26th, 27th or 28th or 32nd, or his 42nd year.) Nothing this time, sorry.

It's almost like I paid you to say that. But I know you say that as your opening "salvo" in every single discussion of NB chronology I have ever seen you join. What's funny though is that I just said the following in the Nineveh thread: And, of course, you did exactly that. In fact, this thread is not focused at all on when Jerusalem was destroyed. The focus is on whether anyone can attach a BCE date to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and thus to any and all of the reigns of every Neo-Babylonian king. I keep finding that the question most Witnesses are afraid to answer and terrified to research is the question: What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year? Once that question is asked the evasion becomes too obvious. Usual m.o.: poison well with COJ

Wow!! Aruana. Great to hear from you again. How are you doing in your new place? The Watchtower publications show that what you are saying is incorrect. Here's the ACTUAL way that the Insight book admits the date is determined. First of all, we should notice that there is a dependence on clay tablets, astronomical tablets, king lists matching the one Ptolemy used, and the fact that these were indeed Babylonian sources. Cyrus moved his capital to Babylon where the same scholars and astronomers/astrologers continued to work. Note that "Insight" below even refers to it as evidence from Babylon. In fact, many clay tablets under Cyrus continue to refer to events and people that were there in Babylon going back continuously through the Neo-Babylonian kings as if nothing changed - business as usual. *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II. Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. What is not mentioned here is how the WTS has determined that Cyrus' son, Cambyses began reigning immediately upon the death of Cyrus. How do we know there was not one or more kings between them, older brothers who were first in line, usurpers, a sickness that delayed Cambyses reign, overlapping regnal years, etc. It's because they also rely on the equivalent of a "King List" to tell them that Cambyses immediately followed Cyrus. That King List is the equivalent of what Ptolemy used, often called Ptolemy's Canon. Note the quote from Parker and Dubberstein 1971. Parker and Dubberstein were able to find complete support for Ptolemy's Canon, not just for every single year but even more accurately to the month and sometimes the day when one king transferred rulership to the next. They were able to validate "Ptolemy's Canon" going back to Nebuchadnezzar and even before to Nabopolassar and even before that. And they had enough tablets to even determine the methods used for adding the "leap" months to the calendar, to get a much more accurate picture of the Babylonian calendar. One might try to claim that because a few centuries later (in the 200's BCE) the Greeks began tying some of these older historical dates to a longer Olympiad period. This is true, but there is ZERO evidence that Olympiad dating was used until SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS after Cyrus. Besides, the Watchtower publications REJECT the Olympiad dating as inaccurate even for Artaxerxes, who is even more recent than Cyrus in the Persian period. It should be clear that none of this evidence helps the WTS calculate 607. Claiming to rely on later Greek historians like Herodotus or Xenophon or others is also problematic. What they got, they copied from Babylonian and Persian sources. Note what the Insight book says: *** it-1 p. 457 Chronology *** Included among ancient Greek historians are: Herodotus (c. 484-425 B.C.E.); Thucydides (c. 471-401 B.C.E.); Xenophon (c. 431-352 B.C.E.); Ctesias (fifth-fourth century B.C.E.); . . . *** it-1 p. 457 Chronology *** All of these lived after the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian period and only the first four mentioned lived during the period of the Persian Empire. For the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, then, none of these writers present information based on personal knowledge, but they record, rather, the traditional views they heard or, in some cases, may have read and copied. The accuracy of their data obviously depends on the accuracy of the sources used. Not only this, but what we know of their writings is today dependent upon copies of copies, the oldest copy often dating no farther back than the medieval period of the Common Era. We have already seen how the chronologies of Manetho and Berossus were mutilated by copyists. As to the qualifications and reliability of the other ancient historians of the classical period, the following is noteworthy: . . Herodotus’ approach to history—asking a question, looking for relevant information, and then drawing a conclusion—is spoken of highly. But it is also said that at times “his data were unsatisfactory” and that “he offers a rational explanation side by side with the irrational.” It has also been said that he belongs “distinctly to the romantic school” and so was as much a storyteller as a historian. (The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985 edition, Vol. 5, pp. 881, 882; 1910 edition, Vol. XIII, p. 383) As to Xenophon, it is said that “objectivity, thoroughness, and research were not for him” and that he adorned his narratives with “fictitious speeches.” (The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 12, p. 796) George Rawlinson accuses Ctesias of deliberately extending the period of the Median monarchy “by the conscious use of a system of duplication.” He further states: “Each king, or period, in Herodotus occurs in the list of Ctesias twice—a transparent device, clumsily cloaked by the cheap expedient of a liberal invention of names.”—The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, 1885, Vol. II, p. 85. Concerning Roman history of the kingly period (preceding the establishment of the Republic), we read that it “stretches back into the regions of pure mythology. It is little more than a collection of fables told with scarcely any attempt at criticism, and with no more regard to chronological sequence than was necessary to make the tale run smoothly or to fill up such gaps . . .

As you probably already know, the WTS publications are correct when they state: *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. Literate Babylonians from various cities all over the empire could write "17th year of Nabopolassar" [with the month and day] or "18th year of Nebuchadnezzar" [with the month and day] just as readily as we would write 2/25/2024. And there is apparently an average of about 1,000 of these contracts per year covering EVERY year of EVERY Neo-Babylonidan king. This means that if you could just put them in the right order, you would have the entire string of dates covered from Nabopolassar, to Nebuchadnezzar, to Amel-Marduk, to Neriglissar, to Labashi-Marduk, to Nabonidus, to Cyrus, to Cambyses, etc. At that point you would only need to identify the BCE year for any ONE of those years and you would know the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology of every king. Evidence for any one year, serves as evidence for every other year. All of them interlock with no exceptions and no contradictions. In other words, if you had evidence somehow that the first year of Cyrus was 538 BCE, that would also serve as evidence that the 14th year of Nabopolassar was 612 BCE. If you had evidence that the last year of Nabopolassar was 604, that would serve as the same evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605, and his first year was 604, and his 18th was 587 and his 43rd was 562. This is why a discussion of the actual 'solid' evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology is the best foundation for discovering the date of Nineveh's destruction, or the fall of Jerusalem, or the fall of Babylon, or the start of Evil-Merodach's reign. I think you can tell, @xero, that a discussion that focuses on just the secular evidence would be useful to more easily reach exactly the same goal. And that goal could not only be more easily reached, but also more easily verified and double-checked and triple-checked, and quadruple-checked from various independent sources. I say this because there is no astronomical event recorded for the 14th year of Nabopolassar which is the evidenced date for the Fall of Nineveh. But there is an astronomical event dated to the accession year of Nabopolassar in 626 BCE. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. There is a separate astronomical event dated to the 18th year of Nabopolassar in 616. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. And putting those two independent pieces of evidence together we have double-checked the date. But when the entire string of Neo-Babylonian kings is put in the right order, we also have astronomical observations reported for Neb 14 = 591, Neb 16 = 589, Neb 18 = 587, Neb 25 = 580, Neb 26 = 579, Neb 27 =578, Neb 28 = 577, etc. Each one of those pieces of evidence is ALSO therefore evidence that Nabopolassar 14 = 612, so that even an observation under Nebuchadnezzar becomes evidence that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. Of course, this also means that, when you put the entire string of Neo-Babylonian kings in order, any evidence that 539 is the correct date for Cyrus conquering Babylon is the same evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th is 587. There is no such thing as choosing one without the other, UNLESS you are willing to discard the evidence from literally THOUSANDS of business documents, and also discard the double-checked, triple-checked, . . . octuple-checked astronomical data. And it would be highly hypocritical, because whatever reason you tried to give for discarding THOUSANDS of piecies of excellent evidence would apply moreso against the much weaker and less attested evidence for Cyrus in 539. The reason for moving that kind of a discussion to another thread is because there will invariably be someone who is so fearful of the actual evidence that they will quickly say that first you have to prove exactly when the 70 years started and ended. Or, first you have to tell me why secular scholars haven't decided on whether it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. Or, first you have to prove that Russell was really wrong in promoting Zionism. Those types of new goal posts and moving of goal posts can be distracting to someone who is more interested in the strength of the evidence for attaching BCE dates to the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

And, as discussed previously about Gerard Gertoux on the forum, the above link you provided gets into some of those exact details that show how the Neo-Babylonian chronology is "set in stone:" In your link, Gertoux states: The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronisms, since the year of Assur-uballit II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II. According to the biography of Adad-Guppi12, mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele there were 54 years between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901) and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar. Dated lunar eclipses are: year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (March 19/20 721 BCE, March 8/9 and September 1/2 720 BCE); year 5 of Nabopolassar (April 21/22 621 BCE); year 2 of !ama#-#uma-ukîn (April 10/11 666 BCE); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562 BCE). A diary (VAT 4956) contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An astronomical journal (BM 38462)17 list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE. I think it was pretty brave of Gerard Gertoux to stand up against the WTS tradition publicly and show just why the accepted, evidenced chronology is so difficult to change and try to discredit.

Excellent point made here in the link you provided: "The durations of the Babylonian reigns, from Eriba-Marduk (770-761) to Nabonidus (556-539), are all known. The chronology of these Babylonian kings is anchored on the dates set by the astronomy of five precisely described lunar eclipses." Sometimes when we read about Babylonian or Mesopotamian chronology being revised, we think of the Neo-Babylonian period which, unfortunately for the WTS tradition, has been "set in stone" and therefore can't really be revised.

The Bible mentions the specific reigns of certain foreign kings during the Judean Babylonian exile, and the post-exilic period. It mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc. Mostly it mentions Nebuchadnezzar: his 1st year, his 2nd, his 7th, his 18th, his 19th, his 23rd, and the Bible also gives an indication that it must have been around his 43rd year when Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) began to reign right after him. No other foreign king is mentioned in the Bible as much as Nebuchadnezzar. So let's say we want to start putting actual BCE dates on the Neo-Babylonian kings. It looks like Nebuchadnezzar is a good place to start. To save space I will abbreviate his name as NEB and abbreviate his years of reign as NEB18 for his 18th year of reign, NEB7 for his 7th, etc. Other kings of the period will also be abbreviated like E-M for Evil-Merodach, NER for Neriglissar, NAB for Nabonidus, CYR for Cyrus etc.

I would love to discuss the 70-year exile, too, and I'm as tempted to do so as anyone else. So I would also propose a separate thread for discussing the evidence for the years of the exile. But I think we would have a better foundation for any discussion of the BCE years attached to the exile, only after we discuss the basic evidence for the BCE years in the first place.

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE. I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose this new thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year? Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus? When that question is solved, it also resolves the entire question about the 70 years, the WTS 20-year gap, the years of those kings that came just before and just after. And it will automatically link to the resolution of dates for events like the Fall of Nineveh, the Battle of Carchemish, the death of Josiah, the years of Zedekiah, the BCE dates for the three different exile events reported in Jeremiah 52. And, of course, it should answer the question about the complete lack of evidence for 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. So in this new thread/topic there would need to be NO discussion of: the 70 years of Jewish Exile, or the 70 years of Babylonian domination over other nations the purpose of the WTS 20-year gap 1914 Daniel 4, Gentile Times, the length of the 7 times/years, the length of the 2,520 days making up those 7 years Not even any discussion of Bible prophecies or "70-year" references in: Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel. Just the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the ACTUAL Neo-Babylonian evidence for it. Any discussion of other topics can be moved back to the topic where this came up and from where I just copied this post. ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90904-trying-to-nail-down-612-bce-as-the-date-of-ninevehs-destruction/ )

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE. I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose a thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year? Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus? When that question is solved, it also resolves the entire question about the 70 years, the WTS 20-year gap, the years of those kings that came just before and just after. And it will automatically link to the resolution of dates for events like the Fall of Nineveh, the Battle of Carchemish, the death of Josiah, the years of Zedekiah, the BCE dates for the three different exile events reported in Jeremiah 52. And , of course, it should answer the question about the complete lack of evidence for 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. So in this new thread/topic there would need to be NO discussion of: the 70 years of Jewish Exile, or the 70 years of Babylonian domination over other nations the purpose of the WTS 20-year gap 1914 Daniel 4, Gentile Times, the length of the 7 times/years, the length of the 2,520 days making up those 7 years Not even any discussion of Bible prophecies or references in: Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel. Just the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Any discussion of other topics can be moved back to this topic/thread.

Actually, @George88 has shown you with the link he just gave that it's very common for PRO-BIBLE commentators to use EXACTLY the dates given by the astronomical data. Notice how every date given in George's link here fits the Biblical text AND fits the dates provided by the Babylonian record. I don't agree with the current prophetic dates given like 1948 and 1967, but if you read his content and especially if you click on the link in the article ( http://xwalk.ca/dates.html ) he is very, very accurate with the Biblical and Babylonian explanations.

Turns out that ALL the astronomical events recorded for the entire period agree perfectly well with the Biblical text. Remember that the Biblical text has no BCE dates. There is NO real contradiction between the astronomical events recorded and the Biblical text regarding the Babylonian period. In fact, the WTS would do much better to follow the same pattern it does for all the other areas where secular history supports the Bible's own version of history. It could be used as evidence to show that there is additional external support for the Bible's accuracy that might have been overlooked. It's true that there were naysayers about the existence of Belshazzar by Bible skeptics looking for excuses not to trust the Bible. Turns out there wasn't really that much evidence for outright denial, but a lot of skepticism based on other issues with Daniel. But the WTS is guilty of similar skepticism coming from another perspective -- and I don't just mean the admission that no one can identify this Darius the Mede, nor the fact that the WTS rejects the Bible's own chronology of Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. Here's an example for another time from "Insight." The Hebrew term transliterated "Ahasuerus" in the Bible is pretty much an expected transliteration for the Persian "Xerxes." (Which can also refer to Artaxerxes.) But notice how the WTS publications deny that the Bible's use of Xerxes/Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus) can refer to him in Ezra, but says it does refer to him in Esther: *** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians *** From Cyrus’ Death to Darius’ Death. The reign of Cyrus the Great ended in 530 B.C.E. when he died while on a warring campaign. His son Cambyses succeeded him to the throne and was successful in conquering Egypt. Though not referred to by the name Cambyses in the Bible, he is evidently the “Ahasuerus” to whom the opposers of the temple work sent false accusations against the Jews, as stated at Ezra 4:6. *** it-2 p. 613 Persia, Persians *** The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes. Xerxes, Darius’ son, is evidently the king called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther. As it turns out, there is really no good reason for the Watchtower to speculate that Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Cambyses in Ezra and Ahasuerus/Xerxes is Xerxes in Esther. The WTS could just as easily have made them both Xerxes and Ezra would actually be giving an even clearer timeline without the unnecessary speculation. I just include it to show how easily and sometimes nonchalantly the WTS will speculate about "outside" history that they believe is contradicted in the Bible. In this case the WTS creates a kind of Bible contradiction about who Ahasuerus was. If anyone wishes to discuss, and has the time, there are a few more of these types of WTS-created Bible contradictions, some which might come up anyway in a full discussion of the chronology of the period.

This might be true to a very small extent, but if true, it means that the WTS has no right to claim that 539 BCE was some kind of absolute, pivotal year. 539 is based wholly, 100% on these judgment calls and assumptions. Besides, the date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times better documented than the 539 BCE date (for the accession year of Cyrus). There are some assumptions used, it's true. But these adjustments or "calibrations" to account for the slowing down of the earth have been known about for a long time. And if we were to use calculations from astronomy today and didn't know about the rate of slowing, we would only be off by about 6 hours going back more than 2700 years. That means that the eclipses recorded by Neo-Babylonian/Persian/Greek scholars would still have happened on the same day, but the background stars which were also reported in these records would have passed them up 6 hours earlier. The article you point to is admitting the same thing as this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-eclipses-show-earth-s-rotation-slowing Overall, Earth's spin has slowed by about 6 hours in the past 2740 years, ----- and here comes the tldr; part to ignore ---------- Even without this data we already knew that the earth's day was getting longer just from satellite data from year to year. Even though the day lengthens by only microseconds at a time, it adds up to hundreds of seconds of difference when you go back several centuries. And when you go back 2,700 years (27 centuries) it's a difference that approaches 20,000 seconds (5.5 hours). That means that when you look for an eclipse, even if you had a good record of the observation for 685 BCE, trying to calculate it without knowing about the earth's slower rotation, would be about 5.75 hours off from the time you expected. That doesn't seem like much time to be off, but it means that the eclipse will likely be seen on the correctly calculated day, but against a background of stars that are nearly half-way across the sky. The Babylonian "scholars" recorded those stars in the background, so it makes the eclipse seem like it doesn't match any eclipses in the year given. That is, until you notice that the same pattern holds for ALL the eclipses and that they make a much better fit for the observation when you realize the earth rotated just a wee bit faster back then. But it's pretty consistent throughout this period: Near 700 BCE observations hovered around 20,000 seconds off, or 5.5 hours Near 600 BCE observations hovered around 19,000 seconds off or 5.25 hours Near 500 BCE observations hovered around 18,000 seconds off, or 5 hours Near 400 BCE observations hovered around 17,000 seconds off, or 4.75 hours Near 300 BCE observations hovered around 16,000 seconds off, or 4.5 hours Although I'm rounding to the nearest thousand and relying on the article's regression-line analysis to "average" out the anomalies, you can easily see the pattern. And by the time you reach AD/CE readings you would expect closer to 3 hours off, and that's right where the readings end up. But those lunar eclipse readings can be double-checked by the half-dozen solar readings during the period from 350 to 150 BCE and these line up even closer to the regression line, helping to confirm the same calculations of "delta-T" [change in time]. The point is that this slowdown of the earth's rotation is only a few hours, not days, but when these calibrations are added to the observations and predictions already observed and recorded in ancient Assyria/Babylon/Persia you can now set a specific formula to account for that curve (parabola). That formula is built into all the major astronomy applications which is why they all give the same results. And it turns out that when you do this, the calculations are further confirmed by making an excellent accounting not just of both the lunar and solar data, but also various planetary calculations that the Babylonians also recorded.

I really like the fact that you are trying to work it out for yourself. Because I was always so skeptical of the accepted, secular chronology I thought it was important to "start from scratch" and work the whole thing out for myself. I think most Witnesses don't realize that ANY time we see a B.C.E. date in the WTS publications, it means that we are relying on SECULAR chronology. Personally, I'm convinced that the Bible is sufficient on its own to keep us fully equipped, therefore without any need to rely on secular chronology, so I give no special credence or reliance to any specific years with a BCE date attached to them. Doesn't mean they can't be helpful in trying to figure out the order of events, but even here, those secular dates aren't necessary in order to understand the Bible, and figure out the order of Biblical events. And from a purely Biblical perspective we aren't going to get any definite mentions of an eclipse or some other astronomical event that is tied to a specific month and day and year of a specific king. Therefore there can be no BCE dates calculated from the Bible. In my opinion, there are two main stumbling blocks that always hamper any chronology discussion, and they are related: Witnesses are told that we are defending Biblical chronology based on a pivotal ('absolute') date of 539 BCE and the Biblical 70 years. When arguing with Witnesses, Non-Witnesses don't (or won't) admit that the most logical and common-sense understanding of the 70 years favors the WTS viewpoint.

I only meant that for those of us who have watched this phenomenon for years, we can easily spot it. Then again, when someone needs you to explain something a dozen times over the course of several months, and several threads (like your use of the term "carrion") but they still come back with the exact same retort . . . well sometimes you can just 'smell' it:

A couple of interesting resources on the above: Priestly Clothing in Bible Times https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=24&article=1075&context=mi&type=additional The title looks boring, and it's a long PDF but definitely worth the read. It refers to several different apocryphal writings, and other pseudepigrapha that refer to the skins and variations of beliefs about them. Even the Leviathan gets honorable mention as a source for the garments, as do sheep, as does that original serpent himself. It also gets into the traditions about "garments of glory" or "garments of light." That's mostly discussed in the next article. Vested with Adam's Glory: Moses as the Luminous Counterpart of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Macarian Homilies https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/moses1.html

LOL. I've avoided outing him directly for a couple of years, although I drop a hint now and then for newcomers to the forum like yourself. It's part of this forum's history now over the last 10 years to have had at least 40+ names show up that were really all the same person. He has rarely been able to juggle more than 3 or 4 to be active at the same time. You have already blocked his G88 persona, but he always keeps a couple of other accounts active as backups, as sock puppets, and as proxies to upvote himself and downvote others. Fortunately, he tries pretty hard to remain serious for a while, but typically devolves into a lot of dissention and insults before too long. For those of us who have participated for several years, it's unbelievably easy to spot his doppelgangers by repeated vocabulary, repeated attacks, repeated ideas, and repeated non-ideas. He is apparently not aware how easily he gives himself away through some other factors I'll keep to myself for now, even though several others here have already mentioned those factors elsewhere. If no one takes themselves too seriously, it can be terribly entertaining, in a unique sort of way.

Trolls-R-Us: @BTK59 @BillyTheKid-55 @George88 @Allen Smith @AllenSmith35 @Alphonse and many more. What would this forum be like without them?

I deleted the post that this came from. Was too convoluted, unclear, and I had introduced my own erroneous thinking into it.

That's true, I do not believe I know better than the lexicons. I was merely pointing out that you had presented a point that was pretty much the opposite of what that lexicon was saying. It brought to mind previously related monikers because this same type of error was often pointed out to "BillyTheKid" when he was active under that name. When the same type of error is pointed out again and again, it can be something to watch out for, and be alert to, so that it doesn't keep happening. It's a good thing about these forums that we can ALL learn from our past errors, and of course that includes me. That's called "projection." Since I didn't assume a literal translation, I only assumed that you wanted to present the meanings given in the lexicon. And you were the one saying the opposite about outside vs inside the garden, but to others here, not me. I am not making any kind of point about inside vs outside the garden. It was pointed out to you that the verse comes just before they were expelled, but you have every right to say it was after. But it should be pointed out that there is a logical fallacy in believing that just because something the order of events was written down after it happened that you can therefore change the order to your own liking. I have no skin in the game here, so I don't know what you mean by the validity of my perspective. If the Bible says something, it's easiest to take it at face value. If you need to change it, I'm sure you can find some non-conventional books that will support almost any perspective. But I didn't offer mine on that matter, only the matter that the Watchtower says they were animal skins. ChatGPT again? I heard it had some hiccups a day or so ago. The expression "passages as suitable for consumption" reminds me of the joke about the goat that gets into a movie "projection" studio and eats up all the rolls of film. Another goat asks him how he liked it. So the first goat said it was OK but the book was better. Might be too late for that; because you already quoted the lexicon here and I doubt that ANY current reader here with the exception of George88, Alphonse, and their ilk read it the way you did.

There is a word in Hebrew that's used in Genesis 1:28 that might have a bearing on the argument about whether Jehovah may have always had in mind that humans could eat meat, just as many animals had apparently been doing for thousands or years. (Genesis 1:28) . . .Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” The word for subdue in Hebrew is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3533/kjv/wlc/0-1/ כָּבַשׁ kâbash, kaw-bash'; a primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate:—bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection. Other examples are here translating exactly the same word in the New World Translation: It can even indicate "devour" (Zechariah 9:15) Jehovah of armies will defend them, And they will devour and subdue the slingstones. They will drink and be boisterous, as if with wine; And they will be filled like the bowl . . , Or ravage, rape: (Esther 7:8) 8 The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haʹman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: “Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house?” . . . Other ideas, are put into bondage, conquer, etc. Therefore, a basic idea behind subduing the earth, could include "devouring" it. How would one go about conquering the fish, putting the flying creatures into bondage? For what purpose would one subjugate sheep and oxen, if not to also make use of them as resources?

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55 and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. First, you say: I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]." What seemed odd though is that in other forum topics you have praised the scholarly abilities and translation abilities of the GB and the WTS, yet here you simply reject the Watchtower's view: *** w54 7/15 p. 427 May Christians Eat Meat? *** Nor can Jesus’ words, “Happy are the merciful,” be used to advocate vegetarianism, for then Jesus himself would have been unmerciful, for he certainly ate flesh, as we have seen. Jehovah glories in the fact that he is merciful, kind and loving, and in view of all his commands, to eat the passover lamb and to offer animal sacrifices, and his own use of the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve, it must be apparent that being merciful does not require man to refrain from using lower animals for his benefit.—Matt. 5:7, NW. As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command: (Exodus 12:8-14) . . .“‘They must eat the meat on this night. . . . “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. (Leviticus 8:31-35) . . .: “Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and you will eat it there . . . just as I was commanded, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’ . . . Jehovah commanded that we do what we have done today in order to make atonement for you. . . . and carry out your obligation to Jehovah, so that you may not die; for so I have been commanded.” However it happened, your argument as quoted above, ends up talking about the word "garment" and then takes a turn to tunics and linen, and argues that the word had a different meaning from the one it later came to be used for. And you have also diverted to fig leaves in Genesis 3:7 instead of the question about the "skins" in Genesis 3:21. Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5785/kjv/wlc/0-1/ Outline of Biblical Usage [?] skin, hide skin (of men) hide (of animals) Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) עוֹר ʻôwr, ore; from H5783; skin (as naked); by implication, hide, leather:—hide, leather, skin. Here's how it's used elsewhere in Genesis, Exodus and I stopped in the middle of Leviticus, but you can get the picture: TOOLS Gen 27:16 And she put the skins H5785 of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: TOOLS Exo 22:27 For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: H5785 wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. TOOLS Exo 25:5 And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS Exo 26:14 And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. H5785 TOOLS Exo 29:14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, H5785 and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. TOOLS Exo 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin H5785 of his face shone while he talked with him. TOOLS Exo 34:30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin H5785 of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. TOOLS Exo 34:35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin H5785 of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. TOOLS Exo 35:7 And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS Exo 35:23 And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, and red skins H5785 of rams, and badgers' skins, H5785 brought them. TOOLS Exo 36:19 And he made a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering of badgers' skins H5785 above that. TOOLS Exo 39:34 And the covering of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and the covering of badgers' skins, H5785 and the vail of the covering, TOOLS Lev 4:11 And the skin H5785 of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, TOOLS Lev 7:8 And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin H5785 of the burnt offering which he hath offered. TOOLS Lev 8:17 But the bullock, and his hide, H5785 his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses. TOOLS Lev 9:11 And the flesh and the hide H5785 he burnt with fire without the camp. TOOLS Lev 11:32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, H5785 or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. TOOLS Lev 13:2 When a man shall have in the skin H5785 of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin H5785 of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: TOOLS Lev 13:3 And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin H5785 of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin H5785 of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. TOOLS Lev 13:4 If the bright spot be white in the skin H5785 of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, H5785 and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days: TOOLS Lev 13:5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; H5785 then the priest shall shut him up seven days more: TOOLS Lev 13:6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, H5785 the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. TOOLS Lev 13:7 But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, H5785 after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank.

Yes. I saw it, and I agree with almost all of it. That's why I used the term pollution here. But it misses a very important point I think. Right now I'm babysitting an 8 month old wiggle-worm [grand-daughter] and am having trouble typing. But will respond in a couple hours or naptime whichever comes first.

Right. I was just trying to show how this is also how Paul may have understood the Acts 15 decree, if he was able to rescind the part about 'food polluted by idols.'