Alphonse

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 
AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW  as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. 
But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort:
But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back.
I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844
It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full:
That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).
 

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. 
But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. 
It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. 
As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins:

But who's counting? LOL
Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.
 

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. 

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.

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!

…

…..

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?

Let's keep in mind that the whole episode of sinning and talking and getting leather clothing takes place within the confines of the Garden of Eden. Only when God had finished talking with them and provided them with adequate clothing did He drive them out of the Garden.
So the fact that they sinned within the confines of the Garden and were given leather clothing within the confines/boundaries of the Garden speaks for itself and disproves your remark to Many Miles.
The assumption you made that getting clothes is related to the act of sin is only partially acceptable. Because nowhere is it explicitly said that people will remain naked forever or that they will dig in the garden with fingers instead of hoes. Because how will you spread the garden, and that was God's intention, without tools? Plants should be planted, sown, but also uprooted and cut. Unless they were to use beavers, giraffes, goats and elephants for such jobs? lol
Climate change is also certain. So they would need clothes and a roof over their heads, and that again changes the way of life and has nothing to do with the status of perfection. Because both snow and ice is perfection that comes from God, too.

Clean meat is equally suitable, unless you can provide evidence of the consumption of spoiled meat before the flood. I'm still waiting.
Before we engage in the customary mind games of JWI and "Pudgy," let's talk about meat, or have we now shifted the conversion like Srecko?
Are you suggesting that what you said about Dominion is not what you actually stated? Which is it? However, it would be inaccurate to believe that God permitted killing within the Garden. In the unlikely event that an animal did pass away, it would undoubtedly have been respectfully buried, as was customary in later times.
Let's refrain from attributing negative intentions to God's words within the Garden. Satan was the sole negative presence within the Garden.
After they sinned. They were also expelled from the Garden because of it. What skins did God provide when they were still perfect?
This evidence does not demonstrate anything about how to handle perfect beings inside the garden. Try again.
Please provide more clarity in your explanation by distinguishing between the optics inside and outside the garden.
To be rational inside the garden, you must provide evidence to support your thoughts.
You are simply complicating the matter. I hope that those reading your comments aren't persuaded by what you are promoting. You are distorting the meaning of both excerpts to fit your own agenda, and nothing more.
We are currently tending to the garden that is exempt from the restrictions found in Genesis 6:21 and are continuing to follow the guidelines set in Genesis 1:29, which also applied to Noah and the Ark.
I'm not implying that evil disappeared after the garden, as we have proof of that with Caine. I believe there was likely even cannibalism among the inhabitants, especially when the Nephilim were around. How many people do you think made it inside the Ark? That is the important point to consider. By God's command, Noah would have accepted whatever nourishment that was still applicable with Genesis 1:29 for his family and the animals. If you fail to provide evidence to support your unfounded assertions, they will remain as mere baseless claims.
I do not engage in irrational thinking that contradicts all the good that comes from creation, unless you also believe that Satan is good.
My response is clear and supported by reasoning to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

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.

Could you provide evidence to support this within the context of the garden? The ecosystem of nature was certainly different beyond the garden, but I am specifically speaking about the ecosystem within the garden. However, your argument fails to demonstrate how the creative act of consuming animal flesh took place within the garden.
Even before the flood, the principle set forth in Genesis 1:29 remained applicable to both humans and animals. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, those provisions within the ark were undoubtedly present. I am not referring to the language that was received "following" the flood.
How does Genesis 6:21 apply to the provisions inside the ark, considering that Genesis 1:29 would still be relevant for inside the ark due to the pre-flood conditions and the lack of additional accommodations for food after Genesis 9 for Noah?

I think you might not fully comprehend your own post. After Noah and Moses, they were consumers of meat, but not rotten meat - they consumed clean meat. Unless there is concrete evidence confirming that Adam and Eve consumed meat within the garden, which is the focal point of my current discussion, this argument remains unproven. The same can be said about the clothing within the garden, where Adam and Eve only became aware of their nudity after tasting the forbidden fruit. God did not give them skins, unless you and your deceitful friend "pudgy" can prove otherwise while in the garden.

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

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

I disagree with your understanding of the passage you cited. "Subduing" the creators of the land should not be seen as a justified course of action for exploitation. As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption. As you can see, the passage you mentioned uses the same language of food for the animal kingdom.
Therefore, God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh.
Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

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

Could you please provide a Bible verse that confirms this belief? It is often understood that any form of sexual immorality encompasses premarital sex as well as adultery within marriage. Based on your interpretation of scripture, do witnesses think that they should disregard Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:19, along with numerous other passages that highlight the importance of avoiding sexual immorality? Are you using the word "fornication" as a way to unfairly misrepresent sexual acts? 1 Corinthians 5:1
Now the passage you just submitted that you highlighted in bold, can you also see where it states "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."
Should Jehovah's Witnesses undermine this understanding, implying that it is acceptable to deny any of God's laws when we don't like them?
It appears to contradict Christ's teachings, but I look forward to your evidence on how young people can engage in sex without facing consequences under God's law.
 
"(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. "
What are the expectations for us, if we adhere to this text in a morally upright manner? Should we show love to our brother who has committed murder without facing the consequences of God's law? The same can be said about a neighbor. How can you show love to a neighbor who, for example, took away the most important person in your life? What if we focus just on James and set aside all other scriptural passages that condemn the act of murder? What would the answer be for Jehovah's Witnesses?
Do keep in mind that this passage in James is specifically addressing the issue of showing favoritism. 
 

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. 
 

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)? In what sense are you referring to? What could possibly justify consuming rotten meat and even going so far as to ingest the blood of living or deceased animals by humans under either observation of the OT or NT?
The referenced article illustrates a particular line of thinking, showing how some might consider it, while unequivocally establishing its fallacy.
As far as I can tell by the conversation, it appears it's ok to give anyone rotten fruit. Does anyone believe that it will be accepted by everyone? 
This also raises the question of belief, pitting believers against non-believers.  In ancient times, those who rejected the laws of the Israelites freely indulged in consuming even the meat that had been offered to their gods and still had blood in it.  Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

(Quora question) Besides being a significant source for literacy in lands where it is poor, they are well known for disaster relief, prompting taking care of their own, in catastrophic times. They thus provide a good example for other groups to follow, for there is no reason that anyone cannot do as they do.  In recent years, some critics have attempted to spin this exercise of brotherly love as a lack of concern for anyone else. They do this even though they themselves would—say, in the event of an earthquake—check on family members first, never dreaming that anyone would frame that as indifference to the suffering of others. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a family, frankly not large enough to fix everyone. If opponents refuse to acknowledge that love of God can form the basis of family, that is hardly the Witnesses’ fault, is it?