BTK59

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 

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 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?

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 …..
 

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

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?

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them.
People often try to rationalize their irrational thoughts regarding the time of Noah and Moses. In Leviticus 17:14, it is stated that the life of the flesh resides in the blood, which would be considered precious to God. During those times, the Israelites had a specific ritual of purity that they had to follow for God's acceptance. The concept of defilement would have played a significant role in the minds of Noah, Moses, and Preist as emphasized in Deuteronomy 12:23.

All those facts were essential for a priest to comprehensively grasp their duties under God. True Christians should also embrace the same understanding, distinguishing themselves from those who forsake the true purpose and mistakenly consider themselves Christian. This principle is underscored in Ezekiel 3:18 and Hebrews 9:22.
What is the true significance of Matthew 5:21, regarding the act of causing bloodshed, whether by oneself or another?
True Christians do not want to defile the precious bloodshed made by Christ for us. Who among true Christians does not understand Deuteronomy 28? They should pay attention to it.

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. 
 

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?

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.

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again.
Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC
So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive?  
I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. 
OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings?
That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this:
I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them.
But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence.
There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me.
Exactly. Now it seems you get it. 

I also don't have any issues. The thing is, James (Pudgy) thinks, he is the only one that can insult here.
I don't object to the church being informed of the terrible crimes committed by an individual. As stated in Matthew 18, if someone refuses to acknowledge and repent privately, it is appropriate for the church to be made aware. If that individual continues to refuse to repent, they should be treated as a tax collector. In the time of the Jews, tax collectors were greatly disliked (hated). It is important for children to have a visual understanding of who is being identified as a pedophile, as it will help them to avoid such individuals. Therefore, I support this advocacy. If these people are scared for life due to their foolish position, I see no reason to stand in their way, haha!
In the United States, there is a growing concern as some individuals manage to evade the requirement of registering as sex offenders, leaving others permanently affected. However, we can remain hopeful that, over time, these issues will be properly addressed.
 

Everything is possible with Georg. lol

Neurotic agenda driven envy always results in ignoring facts, and deranged obsessions. He AWAYS MISSES THE POINT(S).
It’s called “obsessive cluelessness”.
The WDS sword cuts both ways … and it cuts deep.

The POINT was that the Congregation was specifically told by Jesus how to handle problems in Matthew 18, and to the point in Matthew 18:15 … and they refuse to do it that way.
THAT …. is the point!
 

I guess that would mean Wally McNasty is linked to James Thomas Rook Jr, or is it Pudgy now? lol!