JW Insider

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.'

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication. That doesn't mean it's not sinful, just as murder and theft and creating divisions and contentions are sinful. No. Paul explained quite the opposite. (Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, . . . But Christians still end up being "doers" of the law by fulfilling the law without written rules, i.e., the "royal law" of Christ. They have the law written in their hearts (their true motivations). (James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well.

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy? Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here? (1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . . Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind. The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing." There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother. To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules. However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice: (Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone." The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. (1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . . (1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back). MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread. The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607. Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology. The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE. The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE. The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586 The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology. Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607. Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539. Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus) That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539) The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period. NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap. NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence. NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions. NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses. To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology. To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.) To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011 (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186) Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607." Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874). The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915." After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine. After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.