Jump to content
The World News Media

Finnish author looks to fill the 20-year chronology gap


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The green mark over the second year of Cyrus shows that this date perfectly aligns

 

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In this case (because he has added the extra 20 years before Nabonidus, there are now two marked dates that perfectly align

With this pace and with each new research and update date, Mansikka will get all the green settlements after .... 21 corrections. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep? Sometimes I wonder if you are not an alien. Well, now seriously, I just wanted to tell you that all this information is appreciated. It

Finally we get into discussion of the deep questions of life. One verse I will never apply to JWI is that of the lazy man turning on his bed like a door on its hinge.

If anyone got through all that reading, they surely won't mind indulging me in a little story about a girl who had trouble sleeping, so she kept a "sleep diary" for a few months. I think that a few he

Posted Images

  • Member
54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The reason that Mansikka calls him Nebuchadnezzar V is because III and IV were already taken by real persons who used the name Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar V is, in my opinion, a new imaginary person made up in order to create the additional 20 years!

By my stupid logic :))) also it would be normal that the numerical names of kings go in order from I to II to III to IV and then end with V.  But Mansikka put V between II and IV. Something is weird here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With this pace and with each new research and update date, Mansikka will get all the green settlements after .... 21 corrections. :)

True. For many of these years there are two or even many more readings for that same year, so he would actually need to make about 45 to 50 different explanations, so far, as to why the vast majority of these readings absolutely fit the standard given years in the first chart, and why they absolutely cannot fit the vast majority of years in either of his proposal/suggestions. (I don't know the actual total number yet of verifiable observations he would need to explain, but I have done about 50 myself so far.)

One also needs to remember that the astronomical observations ("natural history") not only gives us the proper BCE date, they were already tied to the name of the king and his regnal year in which it occurred.

So his new explanation, which he can't offer, of course, would have to do the following:

  • Explain how a specific observation might not have actually occurred. (Even though we can verify that such an observation actually did occur. at all even though we can look in modern astronomy programs and verify positions that happened last year, just as easily as we can verify positions that happened 100 years ago, or 1000, or 3000 years ago.)
  • Explain how a specific observation might have occurred but somehow got put down for a king that hadn't reigned for 20 years, or was assigned to a year of his reign that was 20 years off.
  • Explain how and why a recurring cycle of observations, such as a recurring saros cycle could suddenly become meaningless gibberish with an 18 year gap that becomes a proposed 38 year gap that would never even be identifiable as a "cycle" anymore. In other words, why would they even know anything about an 18 year cycle if that cycle couldn't predict anything that re-occurred, and was therefore no longer a "cycle."

The very fact that observations could be predicted and not just observed is evidence that there were no fictitious 20 year gaps that needed to be filled in. Had there been even a 1 year gap, all predictions would have been impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

also it would be normal that the numerical names of kings go in order from I to II to III to IV and then end with V.  But Mansikka put V between II and IV. Something is weird here!

This is possible because there was a Nebuchadnezzar about 500 years earlier than Nebuchadnezzar the Great. So the first one is now known as "I" and the second one is now known as "II." It's not that they every called themselves I and II.

Using Wikipedia's references at the bottom of their page, we can verify that these statements in the article are substantially correct:

A Babylonian noble of the Zazakku family and the son of a man by the name of Mukīn-zēri or Kîn-Zêr, Nidintu-Bêl took the regnal name Nebuchadnezzar upon his accession to the Babylonian throne and claimed to be a son of Nabonidus, Babylon's last independent king.

The earliest record of Nebuchadnezzar III is a document mentioning him as the king of Babylon on 3 October 522 BC, possibly the day of his accession to the throne. His revolt had probably originally been aimed at throwing off the rule of the unpopular Persian king Bardiya, but Bardiya had been overthrown by Darius I by the time the revolt began. Nebuchadnezzar III quickly established his rule in Babylonia, seizing control of not only Babylon itself but also the cities of Borsippa, Sippar and Uruk. It is possible that he successfully gained control of all of Babylonia. On 13 December, . . .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_III

A half-century after Nebuchadnezzar, the regnal year that began in the year 523 BCE (Nisan 1) was already credited to the current king, Cambyses.  And the next year Nisanu 522 would also have been credited to Cambyses since he was still alive and well that year. But later in 522 there was a scramble between this person who wanted to call himself Nebuchadnezzar (III), and Bardiya. But neither of them could last until Nisanu of 521, so they never had an official regnal year. Before their "make Babylonia Great again" coup attempts worked out, Darius the Great had already usurped the throne of Cambyses so that he was already in his "accession" year in 522 and his official reign began to be numbered from Nisan 1, 521 BCE. 

In other words, it would be wrong for any "king lists" to name either of them in an official calendar year.

During the first year of Darius there was another attempt by a MBGA "Nebuchadnezzar" (IV) but this was also "during the year" between the two Nisanu's, and didn't remove Darius anyway. So we should not see this Nebuchadnezzar in the calendar, even though we can read about III and IV in the Babylonian and later histories.

Imagine the likelihood of this assumption that there might have been a Nebuchadnezzar V who reigned for nearly 20 years, under such a "great" name, but that this detail was somehow missed by the same historians who can tell us about some obscure usurpers or coup attempts that only lasted a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So the first one is now known as "I" and the second one is now known as "II." It's not that they every called themselves I and II.

Yes, i understand this. Same with BCE and CE. People of later time made system how to distinguish, recognize the order of occurrence in the timeline. 

 Marking with a number, name or nickname that was added much later to a person from the distant past, has the purpose of being recognized by today's people. Precisely because of that moment when someone appears in some role (for a ruler) a lower number should show that the holder of number "I" was in power before number "II", especially if both bore the same name or were from the same line of kings. The years of the beginning and end of the reign of an individual king would follow, or confirm the order of numbers "I" and "II", or further numbers if any. But that's just my understanding of this :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

a lower number should show that the holder of number "I" was in power before number "II", especially if both bore the same name or were from the same line of kings.

True. The imaginary Nebuchadnezzar V should have been named "Nebuchadnezzar II.i" or "2a" or "2.1" or "two and one-half" etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The advantage of this last suggestion by Mansikka is twofold.

  1. He does not have to come up with a brand new king of 20 years to insert, that history somehow forgot about, even though history can tell us about several kings that reigned only a few months. We even have contract tablets representing those kings who reigned only a few months, so it was ludicrous to try to get people to believe that there were 20 (imaginary) years of Nabonidus that were represented by zero tablets when each of the other years of his actual reign could have been represented by dozens or even hundreds of tablets.
  2. He can account for the fact that there are no additional contract tablets for a king by the same name, just by claiming that perhaps half of the contract tablets from years 1 to 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II were actually mistakenly credited to Neb II and were actually for Neb V.

One problem with the new claim is that we would now have to expect that the number of tablets for the first twenty years of Nebuchadnezzars would be about double the number from years 21 through 43. Because there are two kings who are getting tablets marked NEB (1-20) and only one NEB (21-43).

There are several other problems he tries to avoid with the new proposal related to the Babylonian Chronicles, but I am not concerned with those.

One of the major disadvantages is that Mansikka had previously utilized a contemporary piece of archaeological evidence in the first suggestion that he must now reject. The inscription for Adad-guppi' has been discussed before, and it lists the age of Nabonidus' mother, by saying she lived through so many years of Nabopolassar (21), then so many years of Nebuchadnezzar (43), then so many years of Amel-Marduk (2), then so many years of Neriglissar (4) and then so many years of Nabonidus (only 9, up to that point because she died in his 9th year).

Mansikka could therefore show that he had "negative evidence" that it was Nabonidus that could be extended from 17 to 37 years, and this would not conflict with the Adad-guppi' inscription. Adad-guppi' allows you to imagine anything you want after year 9. But I believe Mansikka finally dropped it because the Insight book includes the evidence that it was in Nabonidus 17th year when Cyrus came a-conquering in 539 BCE.

But you have to give Mansikka some credit for trying. Not even the WTS writers will dare to propose where they might intend to squeeze in those additional 20 years they need. In fact, if you add up all the different statements of years that the WTS has admitted for each king, you would only get the same chart as the first chart I presented above, the one that pretty much everyone outside the WTS agrees with. No one would have any idea exactly where to start changing the BCE dates by 20 years, or even if we are supposed to believe it was all in one block. Perhaps the WTS has the idea that there were one or two or three new kings to be added in here between Nebuchadnezzar 43 and Nabonidus 17(Cyrus 0). Or perhaps there is a combination of new kings and tacking a few years onto Evil-Merodach and/or Neriglissar.

Mansikka seems to be looking for just one king whose reign is extended. So I think we need to look at his own reasons for going that route. If he doesn't give any, then I'll assume Occam's Razor.

Also we might want to look at why he thinks we need to add 20 years to these reigns in the first place, and know why he wants them between the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the first year of Cyrus. Deep down, we all know why. It's because . . . 1914!

Adding those 20 years anywhere else outside of that range will ruin the support for 1914.

Technically, it has to after the start of Evil-Merodach's reign and before the beginning of Nabonidus 17 year reign, because the INSIGHT book already admits that Evil Merodach began just after the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Nabonidus only reigned 17 years before Cyrus. That gives a total range of only 5 years by standard archaeological evidence, into which Mansikka must stick 20 more years to turn it from 5 to 25.

But since he writes his books without giving away his WTS bias, and without claiming he is a Witness, then he is probably under some diversionary obligation to give a different reason to make it all look scholarly. So I'll look at the reasons he gives publicly for adding 20 years in the first place. We already know his real reasons because he has placed them exactly into that narrow 5-year period allowed by the WTS publications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One of the major disadvantages is that Mansikka had previously utilized a contemporary piece of archaeological evidence in the first suggestion that he must now reject.

Thus, people who read his works might come to the conclusion that the author is superficial in his research and inference. I don't know how much time passed between his first and second conclusion. It’s nice when a man admits his mistake, but has he explained somewhere why he changed his original opinion and rejected his original conclusion?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But you have to give Mansikka some credit for trying.

Mansikka does not have only one problem, how to squeeze the non-existent 20 years into a certain period between Nba II and Cyrus. With his maneuvers, he should arrange all other historical figures not only in Babylon but also all around Babylon. Does he care about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It’s nice when a man admits his mistake, but has he explained somewhere why he changed his original opinion and rejected his original conclusion?

He started to, but I think he realizes there is trouble in the details for him. His explanations are very "light."

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With his maneuvers, he should arrange all other historical figures not only in Babylon but also all around Babylon. Does he care about that?

I think he does care. He discusses the other countries, but with the same lack of detail during the Neo-Babylonian period. I plan to discuss before giving all my biases. I invited him to join, because he might be able to give answers that the book doesn't give. Or updates. My last email to him:

Hello again,

 
Thanks for visiting the discussion forum. You are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion. They can get quite lively on this and related topics.
 
I am sorry I had not read the Nebuchadnezzar V information carefully to the end. As I read the first few pages it was not clear to me that this would replace the Nabonidus proposal by more than a couple of years. I assumed that the information about Nebuchadnezzar II on page 14 was a reference to a two year-correction. You weren't clear about the direction or relationship with the "23 year" correction to follow. Up to page 16, when you spoke of an increase in Amel-Marduk's term, I naturally associated the reference with a relatively small period of overlap which would have been part of the two year-correction on page 14. So although I could tell you were going to adjust Nabonidus, I had the impression that we were talking only about a couple of years here and there. 
 
I admit that I only skimmed, from about page 18 onward, and didn't see the critical explanation on page 20 about increasing Amel-Marduk by 18 years, instead of Nabonidus, and using the two year adjustment  from an overlap to pick up the other two years. (2+18=20)
 
This was my mistake and I will be open about it when I explain your new position on the discussion forum:
 
 
Feel free to pass along your own comments, or updates, or as I said above, to join the discussion yourself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

SInce the last book Mansikka asked me to look at was his work about "Nebuchadnezzar V" I will look closely at that first. He has also just sent me an email asking to especially look at the book "Lookout to Ancient Eclipses" especially chapter 5.

First Nebuchadnezzar V. It opens up with these words:

Introduction

Who was Nebuchadnezzar V, king of Babylon, who ruled in the 570s and 560s BC? This dissertation publishes this new king, who has been unknown for more than 2,300 years. The dissertation sets out the rationale for the time he ruled and what evidence is there that he used the name Nebuchadnezzar.

So, Mansikka admits that this "Neb.V" is a "new king" who was supposedly already unknown just a couple hundred years after a nearly 20 year reign. This is odd because, Babylonian, Persian and Greek historians even tells us about other kings who reigned only a few months. In other words, no one mentioned him, or put him in a calendar or king list which was a requirement of time-keeping --ever!

I believe that we will be able to see that this person has really never existed except in the imagination of Pekka Mansikka.

Next he says:

Why is Nebuchadnezzar V missing from the list of kings? Probably this be not an mishap. However, Berossos, whose list is often quoted, was apparently not the first to write the King's List of Babylon from that time. Berossos – 7 – had older clay paintings at his disposal. Thanks to the texts of these old clay tablets, the Babylonians were already in complete obscurity at the time of Berossos in connection unknow [sic] for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar V. 

The conjecture here is that not only Berossos, a later historian, but even the Babylonians themselves already knew nothing about him, shortly after he supposedly reigned.

The Babylonians were accurate about their religious background. Thus, the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the royal list is that he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity.

The Babylonians were accurate about their religious background. Thus, the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the royal list is that he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity. Of course, there is no evidence for this.

That was the entire "Introduction."

The book goes on then with the section:

1. From the researcher's desk

The historical years in this dissertation that deviate from the traditional chronology of the reigns of the various kings could surprise the reader. Therefore, this chapter examines the background to how the decisions of this dissertation have been reached over the years. The author began researching the history of eclipses recorded in history and their timing in the course of history in the winter of 2017.

The next few paragraphs seem unrelated, but I'll go through them anyway. While I cannot help but focus on the weaknesses of his argument, anyone who wishes can focus on the strengths, if they find some.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

His next paragraph starts out as follows:

Assyrian solar eclipse

Already at the beginning of this study, in January 2017, it was clear that in June 763 BC. the solar eclipse could not reconcile the history of Assyria with the 9th year of Ashur-Dan III’s reign. The reason for this was its blatant contradiction with the history of Israel. Based on this, it was easy to start looking for that eclipse at other times.

Thus, it could be stated at the outset of the investigation that there were only two other options. Of these, 13th June 809 BCE seemed more probable a solar eclipse occurred, because it was not inconsistent with the history of Israel.1

Anyone can read a bit about this eclipse from the references and links found on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_eclipse

It really shouldn't matter whether an eclipse has been misidentified from 200 years earlier in another nation's history. This has no effect on identifying a large set of eclipses and observations that are not misidentified 200 years later in the Neo-Babylonian period. We could stipulate that all Assyrian history is wrong, and it would not effect the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian period.

It's really almost as ludicrous as saying there is evidence that the Aztec calendar was off by 46 years at some remote period in the past, and therefore we can't trust that this is really the year 2021. It's only when there is a synchronism between an outside calendar and the Neo-Babylonian calendar (during the Neo-Babylonian period) that we should then consider evidence from other nations and other time periods. Even then, the accuracy of calendars outside the Neo-Babylonian evidence does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian evidence itself.

What Mansikka is really referring to above about the difference between a 763 eclipse and the 809 eclipse is already discussed in the INSIGHT book:

*** INSIGHT-1 pp. 454-455 Chronology ***
An example is the solar eclipse relied upon by historians to correlate Assyrian chronology with Biblical chronology. It is mentioned in the Assyrian eponym lists as taking place in the third month (counting from the spring) during the eponymy of Bur-Sagale. Modern chronologists calculate it to be the eclipse occurring on June 15, 763 B.C.E. Counting back 90 years (or 90 names on the eponym lists) from this date, they arrive at 853 B.C.E. as the date for the battle of Karkar in Shalmaneser III’s sixth year. They claim that Shalmaneser lists King Ahab of Israel as in the enemy coalition facing Assyria in that battle, and that 12 years afterward (Shalmaneser’s 18th year) the Assyrian king refers to King Jehu of Israel as paying tribute. They then deduce that the year 853 B.C.E. marked the date of Ahab’s last year and 841 B.C.E. the start of Jehu’s reign. How sound are these calculations?
First, though it is assumed that the solar eclipse was total, the eponym list does not state this. And, whereas most historians today would apply this reference to the eclipse of 763 B.C.E., not all scholars have done so, some preferring the year 809 B.C.E., during which year an eclipse occurred that would have been at least partially visible in Assyria (as was also the case in 857 and 817 B.C.E., etc.). (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, charts 17, 19, 21) Though modern historians object to any change from the solar eclipse of 763 B.C.E. on the grounds that it would ‘introduce confusion into Assyrian history,’ . . .

Our own (INSIGHT's) chronology for the Judean and Israelite kings appears correct, but the INSIGHT book admits that it is more of a relative chronology.

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. The ancient inspired writers were dealing with facts and figures well known to them and to the Jewish people then, and the different chronological viewpoints adopted by the writers at certain points presented no problem.

And we already know that some arbitrary years have been added due to some special needs required for our prophetic interpretations. And we also know that co-regencies have been assumed in order to fit an interpretation of the 390 years, for example. But if our interpreted chronology is generally correct, or even MORE correct than Assyrian chronology, it has no effect on Neo-Babylonian chronology 200 years later. 

I'll assume that Pekka Mansikka doesn't realize it, but the level of confirmation bias is so high as to border on hypocrisy. For example, he is quick to see -- as he ought to be -- that a shift of a date of one event, like a specific eclipse, will invalidate a chronology because it throws off so many other dated observations in that same timeline. Not just other eclipses and planetary phenomena are thrown off, but in another place Mansikka even uses as evidence that the identified king in the eponym list associated with an event would be wrong:

image.png

How can one complain that earlier Assyrian and/or Egyptian chronology must line up on this basis, and not believe that Neo-Babylonian chronology must be lined up on the same basis? Mansikka is required to negate every one of the Neo-Babylonian eclipses using the exact opposite of the argument for why some years are better than others for these other periods.

Another example of bias is Mansikka's immediate assumption that a coregency must NOT have happened because he doesn't think it likely (for a two year period). Yet he is trying to support the chronology promoted in the INSIGHT book where it is immediately assumed that a coregency will take care of a three year discrepency:

*** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology ***
In the chart that follows, this 390-year period is adhered to as a sound chronological guide. A summation of the years listed for all the reigns of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah gives a total of 393 years. Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. This is in the case of Jehoram, who is stated (at least in the Masoretic text and some of the oldest manuscripts of the Bible) to have become king “while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah,” thus giving some basis for assuming a coregency. (2Ki 8:16) In this manner the overall period comes within the 390-year limit.

(As a side point, it is also curious that when the details add up to 393, that the INSIGHT book prefers to take the more general length of the reported period and assume that the overview number, 390, is more accurate than the detailed view of 393.)

Another gross inconsistency in Mansikka's writings is where he finds it a big problem when astronomical data and other tablets (archaeological evidence) do not line up.

In unnecessarily many cases, “harmony” is found in a very questionable way: by ignoring archaeological evidence. - https://journal.pm-netti.com/lunar-eclipses-of-the-babylonian-astrologers.html

This turns out to be the most egregious of the internal inconsistencies. When convenient to his argument, Mansikka argues for not ignoring archaeological evidence. But in the Neo-Babylonian period, for which we have literally "tons" of evidence, on the order of 50,000 clay tablets, we must ignore nearly all of it, because all of it supports a much different, much simpler chronology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Avrek

      Avrek 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.