Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. One of the most obvious examples of circular reasoning shown by Pekka Mansikka is this: Mansikka claims that this otherwise unknown entity, "Neb. V" must have really existed and reigned for nearly 20 years. So we ask of Mansikka: But if he really existed, then why does all the evidence point away from the existence of this otherwise unknown king? What about all that eclipse evidence that shows that no king named Neb existed at this time? Mansikka answers, that it must still be true, because we can't trust their own evidence, because they didn't know about "Neb. V." I kn
  2. I think I see what you are saying. That if Jehovah thought it was important for us to know for sure that we were supposed to start this date counting of "7 times," and turn those 7 times into 2,520 years from 607 BCE, then Jehovah would have given us exactly enough information to count back from the first year Cyrus, and forward from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar without guessing. And 2 Tim 3:16 would have been changed to say: All scripture is inspired of God . . . that the man of God may be almost fully equipped, so that all he will still need is a working knowledge of how Greek O
  3. 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 occ
  4. 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
  5. He started to, but I think he realizes there is trouble in the details for him. His explanations are very "light." 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.
  6. The advantage of this last suggestion by Mansikka is twofold. 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
  7. True. The imaginary Nebuchadnezzar V should have been named "Nebuchadnezzar II.i" or "2a" or "2.1" or "two and one-half" etc.
  8. 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
  9. 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"
  10. So here are the standard years of the timeline as evidenced by archaeology and astronomy and later historians who referred to the period.
  11. If you really think it was sound research that brought him to develop his list of Neo-Babylonian kings that you posted, you should be able to let us know how he reached this conclusion. Or you could answer Srecko's question: Well. as it turns out, I sent Mansikka a link to this forum, and he has already visited and noticed that the "sound research" that @César Chávez provided was "valid" only up until shortly after December 2019. This means that his book that I was quoting from in response to Cesar was also only "valid" up until shortly after December 2019. Mansikka linked me to t
  12. And I did not bother to read the previous 14 pages of this topic. I just now started here from the end intending to work backwards.
  13. I think he gave enough information if you have followed TTH's interest in the "Teaching Company Great Courses." I have the same lectures on my hard drive.
  14. Referring to what I said above, here are the most significant problems with adding 20 years . Later we can then look at Mansikka's methods of overcoming these issues: 1. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus' 17-year reign to make it 37 years, then he would need to explain every single of one of the years which have astronomical observations that are identified with specific years of the NB kings. (There are at least 50 observations I have tested so far; and a single year may have multiple observations recorded.) Mansikka would have to explain why
  15. What mistakes are these? I assume they made several mistakes based on the fragmentary nature, age, and illegibility of some tablets and individual cuneiform symbols. Whatever it was must not have had any effect on the Neo-Babylonian timeline, however, because I did not rely on COJ or Wiseman or Grayson or AD1914 or AlanF or O'maly. I did rely on Sachs, Hunger and Steele quite a bit because I can't read Akkadian outside of the numerals and a few symbols/words. I also checked against Furuli's presentation of the translations where possible, because I was pretty sure that he might have found reas
  16. What does any of that have to do with the Babylonian Chronicles? I don't take any timeline information from the Babylonian Chronicles.
  17. No. Not at all. I do not accept secular evidence that includes the Babylonian Chronicles. I know what the Babylonian Chronicles are, and I know that I purposely used only evidence that did not include or rely on the Babylonian Chronicles in any way.
  18. The most interesting part of Mansikka's proposal is that he intends to show where the 20-year gap actually would go. Previously we showed that the archaeological evidence --and not even all of it yet-- gives us the following timeline, below, for the Neo-Babylonian period, including the BCE years, through astronomical observations and predictions that only fit specific years. Even one or two of these would be enough to date the entire period, but we already have at least 30 of them "locked in" and this isn't even all of them yet. (Several of the years have multiple astronomical observations beh
  19. I have used lots of archaeological evidence but never the Babylonian Chronicles. There's a difference, and you probably realize that it is "wordplay" to try to associate the Babylonian Chronicles with the archaeological evidence for the timeline. People think there is something "pejorative" about using the Chronicles, so I have avoided them because I don't use them and no one needs them to reproduce the timeline. People should learn what the INSIGHT book actually means when it refers to the Babylonian Chronicles and not mix this up with the many other independent lines of archaeological eviden
  20. Absolutely. You have never seen me rely on the Babylonian Chronicles in the slightest. I have completely ignored the Babylonian Chronicles in these entire discussions about chronology. They are completely unnecessary. I haven't relied on them one bit. In fact, when CC kept bringing them up, I told him that these could be 100% lies, and we'd still have all the evidence we need about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. When the Babylonian Chronicles mention any particular event in history, I immediately assume that it is likely very biased in favor of whoever wrote it. I assume it c
  21. Not to me. It has about the same significance to me as learning a language that isn't used any more, like old Hebrew, koine Greek or Latin. or Old English. It's interesting as a secular topic, like learning a facet of history of an ancient culture. There is only a minor overlap between this topic and scripture, but this doesn't mean it's a "spiritual" topic, just as learning ancient languages might have only a minor overlap with scripture, and it doesn't make the study of Greek, Hebrew, etc., a "spiritual" topic. I know a Witness who has a deep interest in chess, and who goes on forums to
  22. I could be a day or two before I start commenting. Although anyone else might wish to begin commenting at any time.
  23. Sure. I'll do this on another topic. Here we already have another 70-page topic which makes it nearly impossible to navigate, or know what you have read or responded to, or know how many posts to skip before finding the topic you're looking for. Cesar Chavez should get the credit for bringing up several quotes from Mansikka's work over the last week(s) and the chart containing Mansikka's "king list" with "new" dates. But maybe it's best to start fresh instead of copying these posts over. The new topic is "Finnish author looks to fill the 20-year chronology gap."
  24. An author from Finland named Pekka Mansikka has written several books and papers which, among other things, look to adjust the secular chronology to fit the Watchtower's chronology. For those who don't know, the Watchtower's chronology requires an extra 20 years of time somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. This has the effect of pushing back any archaeological date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 20 years. In fact, it affects dates going back much further than that, so that: if one reads that the Battle of Carchemish happened on the archaeol
  25. I requested permission to completely quote 4 pages on this site, on the JW Open Club and/or the JW Closed Club for discussion purposes. Pekka Mansikka generously allowed me to use all of his books.
  • 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.