Pudgy

TrueTom on his way to fleece the sheep.

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today declared that he would use the yacht, Angel, presented to him by his association . . .

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.

Somebody quickly build a Starbucks there or those pioneers will never survive.

"[Jonah] kept proclaiming and saying: “Only forty days more, and Nineveh will be overthrown.”—Jonah 3:4.
?????
Is it reasonable to believe that the Ninevites would repent in sackcloth at the warning of Jonah?
?????
Commissioned a second time to go to Nineveh, he undertook the long journey there. “Finally Jonah started to enter into the city the walking distance of one day, and he kept proclaiming and saying: ‘Only forty days more, and Nineveh will be overthrown.’” (Jon 3:1-4) Whether Jonah knew Assyrian or was miraculously endowed with ability to speak that language is not revealed in the Bible. He may even have spoken Hebrew, his proclamation later being interpreted by one(s) knowing the language. If spoken in Hebrew, Jonah’s words could have aroused great curiosity, with many wondering just what this stranger was saying.
?????
Some critics think it incredible that the Ninevites, including the king, responded to Jonah’s preaching. (Jon 3:5-9) In this regard the remarks of commentator C. F. Keil are of interest: “The powerful impression made upon the Ninevites by Jonah’s preaching, so that the whole city repented in sackcloth and ashes, is quite intelligible, if we simply bear in mind the great susceptibility of Oriental races to emotion, the awe of one Supreme Being which is peculiar to all the heathen religions of Asia, and the great esteem in which soothsaying and oracles were held in Assyria from the very earliest times . . . ; and if we also take into calculation the circumstance that the appearance of a foreigner, who, without any conceivable personal interest, and with the most fearless boldness, disclosed to the great royal city its godless ways, and announced its destruction within a very short period with the confidence so characteristic of the God-sent prophets, could not fail to make a powerful impression upon the minds of the people, which would be all the stronger if the report of the miraculous working of the prophets of Israel had penetrated to Nineveh.”—Commentary on the Old Testament, 1973, Vol. X, Jonah 3:9, pp. 407, 408.
?????
After 40 days had passed and still nothing had happened to Nineveh, Jonah was highly displeased that Jehovah had not brought calamity upon the city. He even prayed for God to take away his life. But Jehovah answered Jonah with the question: “Have you rightly become hot with anger?” (Jon 3:10–4:4) The prophet subsequently left the city and, later, erected a booth for himself. There, to the E of Nineveh, Jonah watched to see what would befall the city.—Jon 4:5.
?????
When a bottle-gourd plant miraculously grew to provide shade for Jonah, the prophet was very pleased. But his rejoicing was short-lived. The next day, early in the morning, a worm injured the plant, causing it to dry up. Deprived of its shade, Jonah was subjected to a parching east wind and the hot sun beating down upon his head. Again, he asked to die.—Jon 4:6-8.
??????
By means of this bottle-gourd plant Jonah was taught a lesson in mercy. He felt sorry for the bottle-gourd plant, probably wondering why it had to die. Yet Jonah had neither planted nor cared for it. On the other hand, being the Creator and Sustainer of life, Jehovah had much more reason to feel sorry for Nineveh. The value of its inhabitants and that of the cattle was far greater than that of one bottle-gourd plant. Therefore, Jehovah asked Jonah: “For my part, ought I not to feel sorry for Nineveh the great city, in which there exist more than one hundred and twenty thousand men who do not at all know the difference between their right hand and their left, besides many domestic animals?” (Jon 4:9-11) That Jonah must have got the point is indicated by the candid portrayal of his own experiences.
??????
It may be that sometime later Jonah met at least one of the persons who had been aboard the ship from Joppa, possibly at the temple in Jerusalem, and learned from him about the vows made by the mariners after the storm abated.—Jon 1:16
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002503?q=jonah+3%3A4&p=par
In the Time of Jonah. Jehovah’s prophet Jonah, in the ninth century B.C.E., declared impending doom for Nineveh because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. However, since the people, including the king, repented, Jehovah spared the city. (Jon 1:1, 2; 3:2, 5-10) At that time Nineveh was a great city, “with a walking distance of three days.” (Jon 3:3) Its population numbered more than 120,000 men. (Jon 4:11) This Biblical description is not controverted by archaeological evidence.
?????
Its Destruction Fulfills Prophecy. Although repenting at the preaching of Jonah (Mt 12:41; Lu 11:30, 32), the Ninevites relapsed and again took to their wicked ways. It was some years after Assyrian King Sennacherib had been murdered at Nineveh in the house of his god Nisroch (2Ki 19:36, 37; Isa 37:37, 38) that Nahum (1:1; 2:8–3:19) and Zephaniah (2:13-15) foretold the destruction of that wicked city. 
?????
Their prophecies were fulfilled when the combined forces of Nabopolassar the king of Babylon and of Cyaxares the Mede besieged and captured Nineveh. The city was evidently subjected to burning, for many Assyrian reliefs show damage or stain from fire and accompanying smoke. With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik.
?????
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003261

…

…

I completely agree, and I can't argue with that. It's disheartening to witness individuals attempting to impose their beliefs on readers as if they were unquestionably right. Regrettably, there has been a decade-long prevalence of dishonest individuals spreading false information here.
This one goes in the category of "was" Jesus crucified on a cross or a torture stake? Some individuals falsely claim the "T" cross and not the torture stake. 
It's frustrating when people criticize me for thinking I'm wrong while overlooking the faults of those they favor. It seems they only focus on pointing out the mistakes of those they don't like, disregarding those they do. This alone reveals the "dishonesty" of specific individuals, and that is unlikely to change.
Observing the illustration regarding finding common ground with specific words, only to have it dismissed by the same person you used to illustrate that very fallacy, and to be falsely contradicted by someone inconsequential, is another sign of deceitfulness.
Who truly becomes the "troll" when they emerge from the closed club to demonstrate the actual impact to the audience? LOL!

…..

…

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:

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. 

“Iceberg! Dead ahead, captain! A six-pointer!”
“Not a problem, mate. Full speed ahead. I’m sure there’s nothing more below.”

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

It's a fascinating question, Tom. Although it may seem challenging at first, it is not impossible to answer. The prevailing speculation suggests that God provided Adam and Eve with skins while they were still inside the Garden, as Genesis 3:21 indicates. I'm not disputing scripture here but the interpretation of scripture by others. However, it is important to consider that this wording may not necessarily be meant to be taken literally. Other sources suggest that God clothed them when they were already outside the garden. So, the real question for all of you should be: Why did God feel the need to clothe them twice? Once inside the garden, where Adam and Eve were already covered, and a second time when they were already outside the garden.
If I was to say I'm wrong, I would first need to disregard the fact that scripture mentions Adam and Eve were already covered when God spoke to them. Meaning I would need to refute scripture just to satisfy the viewpoint. Then I would have to deny the fact skins of an animal don't come off by themselves. If we think otherwise, we would have to say, God "did" sacrifice animals inside the garden to clothe Adam and Eve. How would that act been seen from heaven given the "fact" God considered all of his creation precious. 
If we consider that God did not have to take the lives of animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve in the garden, we may still wonder about the origin of the "skins." Could they have been crafted artificially, resembling garments made of tunics or linen but with a texture like feel of an animal skin? This would still mean the garment was made of linen or artificial with an animal skin look.
Then I would have to deny other writings in order for me to say I'm wrong.
"Then came the Word of God and said to him, "O Adam, take Eve and come to the seashore where you fasted before. There you will find skins of sheep that were left after lions ate the carcasses. Take them and make garments for yourselves, and clothe yourselves with them."
I'm sure this hasn't been overlooked nor should it be. I'll leave you people to rationalize it.

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

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? 
 

Lets, not.
To start, it's crucial to understand that God provided clothing for Adam and Eve as they left the garden, marking their expulsion. You're suggesting that Adam and Eve remained in the garden with clothing, but you'd need to provide evidence from Genesis 3 to support this.
Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."
Do you understand the definition of either word?
A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. 
a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster
b: thread or yarn spun from flax
2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric
3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish
Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon
[Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes
כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167)
Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden?
No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.
Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7.
NAS  Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS)
That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before.
I have witnessed individuals running in the nude in modern society. I fail to perceive the essence of your message.
What if humans had never learned the art of cultivating the land? Would we really be engaged in this argument?
What if humanity had never learned to pollute or harm the earth without the influence of Satan? Where would humanity be now?

It’s impossible for you to agree with me, BTK59.
You are promoting a Disney fantasy of a duck leading a truckload of mice in happy harmony.

You can ignore reality with clever word manipulation, painfully transparent and inane … but clever …. but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.
it usually starts with you being wrong about EVERYTHING, as Many Miles pointed out with two Scriptural references to refute your faceted fantasies.
 

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.

Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse, was first shown on November 18, 1928. It's considered a significant moment in animation history as it was one of the first synchronized sound cartoons.
A bleeding liberal snowflake lawyer for the Society saw it and the idea of happy animals, all living in peace, eating grass (or smokin’ it), already “up the flag pole”,  was set in stone.
  The Watchtower magazine began teaching about a paradise earth with vegetarian animals in the late 1920s, specifically in the 1927 edition of "The Way to Paradise" book by J.F. Rutherford, the second president of the Watch Tower Society
The cartoon validated it.
Compared to today, EVERYBODY was ignorant, and it caught on…. seemingly with Scriptural support. . This teaching later became a central doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD,  all chlorophyl based vegetable life on Earth ate sunlight, and half the animal life on Earth ate the vegetable life, and the second half of all animal life ate the first half.
This is how, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, for at least THREE Billion years, it worked EVERY DAY. 
EVERY DAY !
Even when at least four times, 95% of all life was extinguished through Mass Extinctions … it came back each time working EXACTLY the same way.
There have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history: the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, the Late Devonian extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.
EVERY TIME life found a way back.  The exact same way back.
That’ how the REAL WORLD WORKS!
I am mortified that I once believed in the “Disneyland Fantasy” …. but that’s the way agenda driven thinking works.
…… sigh …..
 

Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse, was first shown on November 18, 1928. It's considered a significant moment in animation history as it was one of the first synchronized sound cartoons.
A bleeding liberal snowflake lawyer for the Society saw it and the idea of happy animals, all living in peace, eating grass (or smokin’ it), already “up the flag pole”,  was set in stone.
  The Watchtower magazine began teaching about a paradise earth with vegetarian animals in the late 1920s, specifically in the 1927 edition of "The Way to Paradise" book by J.F. Rutherford, the second president of the Watch Tower Society
The cartoon validated it.
Compared to today, EVERYBODY was ignorant, and it caught on…. seemingly with Scriptural support. . This teaching later became a central doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD,  all chlorophyl based vegetable life on Earth ate sunlight, and half the animal life on Earth ate the vegetable life, and the second half of all animal life ate the first half.
This is how, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, for at least THREE Billion years, it worked EVERY DAY. 
EVERY DAY !
Even when at least four times, 95% of all life was extinguished through Mass Extinctions … it came back each time working EXACTLY the same way.
There have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history: the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, the Late Devonian extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.
EVERY TIME life found a way back.  The exact same way back.
That’ how the REAL WORLD WORKS!
I am mortified that I once believed in the “Disneyland Fantasy” …. but that’s the way agenda driven thinking works.
…… sigh …..
 

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.