Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
Mr Mansikka puts Amel Marduk in 581-579 BCE, that is quite different than in this source. But ending of rule is same for Amel Marduk (in britishmuseum.org) and Mansikka's Nebuchadnezzar V.
Also on page 25 Mansikka wrote: Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes it is. The Bible tells, that During of the accession year of his us that he released King Jehoiachin of Judah immediately. Compassion for the Jewish prisoners point did not end there. He exalted Jehoiachin, king of Judah, so that he might eat at the king's palace at the same table as the king for the rest of his life.14
and then continue immediately in next passage with: 
Thus, Nebuchadnezzar V may have shown positive attention to the Jews in many other ways.
 
By this i would conclude how very similar or same attitude this "two kings" had about people of different religious background. According to Mansikka, on page 20 he wrote: 
Thus, on this basis, it can be concluded that probably Nabonidus was not a king who changed his name and ruled for another “extra” 18 years. Instead, that king was Amel-Marduk.
 
Does he tell how Amel-Marduk continue to rule as Nebuchadnezzar V?
 
 
    Hello guest!
Also known as
Amel-Marduk
primary name: Amel-Marduk
Biblical: Evil-Merodach
Details
individual; ruler; Mesopotamian; Male
Other dates
561BC-560BC (ruled)
Biography
Third king of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty; 561-560 BC. Mentioned in the Old Testament under the name Evil-Merodach.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 934
  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 f

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

Posted Images

  • Member

So here are the standard years of the timeline as evidenced by archaeology and astronomy and later historians who referred to the period.

                                                                                                                                                                                                 
  625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530
  N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The green marks at the top refer to the fact that all the astronomical observations for specific, marked years from this period perfectly align with the BCE years shown just below them AND align them correctly with the official regnal year of each king as labeled in the bottom row. There are additional years I could have marked, but I have not checked those observations yet for myself. Obviously, it doesn't matter because even ONE identified year is enough to fill in the rest, and I have mostly focused on Nebuchadnezzar.

Above, I was able to fit the entire timeline from Nabopolassar's accession year through the 9th (last) year of Cyrus. Mansikka, below, knows (and agrees with) the full length of those reigns, but I had to start from Nabopolassar 17 through Cyrus 3, just to (barely) fit the extra 20 years which I have marked in black.

So here is Pekka Mansikka's first suggestion/attempt to add 20 years to the timeline: tacking an extra 20 years onto the reign of Nabonidus:

                                                                                                                                                                                           
629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536
NABOP N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Nabonidus (37) [add 20 yr] Cyr
17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 3

The green mark over the second year of Cyrus shows that this date perfectly aligns with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for that year. But all the red marks in previous years show that these observations are now misaligned.

 

Here is Mansikka's most recent suggestion/attempt. I have simplified a bit to show that almost all the additional 20 years are shown as an extension of Amel-Marduk's reign under his new name, Nebuchadnezzar (V). It's actually still a bit incorrect, because there are some other complexities of some start and end dates that shift a year or two in other places, so that this is really only an 18 year extension of Amer-Marduk's reign. I'll fix this post to reflect that.

                                                    ,                                                                                                                                      
629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536
NABOP N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M NNebuchadnezzar V (20 yr) extension of E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Cyr
17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3

In this case (because he has added the extra 20 years before Nabonidus, there are now two marked dates that perfectly align with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for those particular years. All previous years are now misaligned. Note that he has tried to "squeeze in" the 20 years for a Nebuchadnezzar V (five), between Ami-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) and Neriglissar. He thinks this Nebuchadnezzar V is actually an extension of the Amil-Marduk.

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!

Just because he shows Nebuchadnezzar II (2), then V (5) and then III (3) and then IV (4) does not make this suggestion completely wrong on that count alone. He is saying that the tablets assigned to Nebuchadnezzar II, or at least a large portion of them were actually for this "imaginary" Nebuchadnezzar V, 46 years later.

Again there are several additional problems with this theory (which we will see in further discussion).

For now the most important point is that the first chart above aligns to all other archaeological, astronomical and historical sources puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE, and both of Mansikka's suggestions/proposals would place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 607 BCE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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 post
Share on other sites
  • 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 post
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 post
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

    Hello guest!
, 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

    Hello guest!
, but Bardiya had been overthrown by
    Hello guest!
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
    Hello guest!
,
    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
. It is possible that he successfully gained control of all of Babylonia. On 13 December, . . . 
    Hello guest!

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • By JW Insider
      We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
      The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
      So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
      Yes.
      Do all ancient records agree?
      No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
      So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
      Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
      OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
      Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
      So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
      *Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.
    • By César Chávez
      Well at least Theologians are beginning to see how CORRECT the Watchtower is by them demonstrating in their new Bible Studies the 3 Babylonian deportations of the Judeans.
      However, they still have to conjoin the fall of Jerusalem from 586 BC to an earlier date written in human history and scripture.
      An honest assessment, that can’t be found here by questionable people.
      NIV, Bible Study has been introduced here, not to show the publishing house but the actions that are now being considered and printed that agrees in similar fashion with the Watchtower. If they are willing to reconsider that stance, then it shouldn’t be a problem about 1914.
      The NIV Study Bible
      Copyright © 1985, 1995, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2020 by Zondervan


      Therefore, 1914 is not problematic to those that, understand.
    • By JW Insider
      A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.
      I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.
      The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:


       
    • By The Librarian
      This is going to be fun.
      The darkness at the time of Jesus’ Crucifixion gives us solid proof — either of the Bible lying or the Bible recording a remarkable truth. The Bible describes two spectacular events on the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion.
      Listen to how Mark describes the first: “And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour” (Mark 15:33 NIV).
      If darkness covered the entire land, it would be visible to more than those in Jerusalem. Everybody around the Roman Empire should have seen something, if it was real.
      The second event likewise would be visible everywhere. Joel prophesied it and Peter quoted it:
      (Acts 2:16, 19–22)
      A blood moon occurs during a lunar eclipse. As with the darkness, it should be widely visible, if indeed it happened during Jesus’ crucifixion — as Peter indicates it did.
      If we find nothing in the historical record, then it appears the Bible lied.
      But do find this in the historical record — well, then things get interesting.
      So what do we find?
      Thallus was one of the first to write about the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, writing at about 52 AD/CE. His original work has been lost, but Julius Africanus, an historian who wrote around 221 A.D., quotes Thallus to disagree with him:
      Both of Thallus and Julius attest to the darkness as a real event, so much so that they can bicker about the cause.
      Phlegon, a Greek historian and author of a detailed chronology in 137 AD/CE, wrote:
      This one is especially handy, as it corroborates the exact year and time of day for the darkness, as well as and the earthquake.
      Africanus also wrote a five-volume history of the world c. 221 AD/CE. His account is particularly noteworthy both for its length and for his credibility; he had impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus so well with his historical rigor that he was put in charge of the Emperor's library in the Pantheon; in other words, he was the most well-known, influential, and well-resourced historian in the Empire.
      While I quoted him briefly above to highlight Thallus’ contribution, Africanus’ full paragraph adds a great deal more detail:
      This one additionally is valuable given that it mentions the resurrection of the dead and again the earthquake, in addition to the darkness.
      Tertullian (second century) also provides a remarkable attestation, writing:
      Not only does Tertullian attest to it, but he appeals to how well-recorded the event is in established historical archives of the time. This is perhaps the most significant attribution, given that he cites how extensively the event was recorded and appeals to the public records to prove his point.
      The darkness, then, is well-established.
      What then do we find about a blood moon?
      It turns out that a lunar eclipse did happen on exactly the day the darkness was recorded: April 3, 33 A.D./C.E.

      A view of the partial lunar eclipse on August 7, 2017 as seen from Malta in the Mediterranean Sea.
      Credit and copyright: Leonard Ellul-Mercer.

      The precise data on the partial lunar eclipses of April 3, 33 A.D./C.E.
      This blood moon during the day of Jesus’ Crucifixion was so well-known that writers in the early church appealed to it frequently.
      Skeptics have long scoffed at these details in the Bible. But like most details in the Scriptures, when you dig into the research, you find the claims verified.
      The Bible is not a book of cleverly-invented myths. It records real events that happened in real history. The more we press into the individual details, the more we find them verified.
      By Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      How to get kids ready for, and excited about, the Great American Eclipse
       
      You’re standing in the yard with your children. The temperature has just dropped 20 degrees, and it’s pitch dark. Not normal nighttime dark — your kids have seen that before — but completely black, as though all the light is gone from the world. Because it has.
      The Great American Eclipse is coming Aug. 21. For the first time in American history, a total solar eclipse will be seen only in the United States. It is also the first total solar eclipse since 1918 to move from coast to coast. At 10:15 a.m. Pacific time, totality begins outside Depoe Bay, Ore.; at 2:49 p.m. Eastern time, it ends near McClellanville, S.C. In the time between, the eclipse will darken 12 states: Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina. Eighty percent of the U.S. population lives within 600 miles of the eclipse path.
      In short, if you don’t live in what scientists call “the totality band,” you need to get there. The rest of North America will see a partial solar eclipse, but astronomer Jay M. Pasachoff says settling for a partial eclipse when you could see a total one is like “standing outside an opera house and saying that you have seen the opera; in both cases, you have missed the main event.” Stepping one millimeter outside totality changes everything.
      Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2017/06/29/how-to-get-kids-ready-for-and-excited-about-the-great-american-eclipse/?utm_term=.ca8067a74794
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., is now home to some of Ethiopia’s most important religious manuscripts after they were recently donated to the university by Chicago-based collectors Gerald and Barbara Weiner. The couple gave out the handmade leather manuscripts with the hope of allowing Ethiopians in the U.S. to use them for prayers and study, according to Catholic News Agency.
      Dr. Aaron M. Butts, a professor of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature at the university, put up a statement saying the collection “provides unparalleled primary sources for the study of Eastern Christianity.”
      What’s In the Collection?
      In total, the collection is comprised of 125 Christian manuscripts, including liturgical books, hagiographies, psalters, and 215 Islamic manuscripts, including the Quran and commentaries on Quran.

      According to the Catholic News Agency, it’s the largest collection of Ethiopian Islamic manuscripts outside of Ethiopia.
      More than 600 manuscripts were handmade using hides from calves, sheep, and goats, and are estimated to date back to the 18th and 19th century.
      In the collection, there are over 350 “magic” scrolls, which are traditional Christian prayer talismans, and each was handwritten by a “debtera,” or a cleric in the Ethiopian church, and includes the name of the person it was written for.
      Pieces of the manuscripts were worn around the neck for purposes of helping people with different kinds of ailments, including headaches, painful menstruation, and complicated childbirth.
      Butts suggests that some of these scrolls, which were predominantly worn by women, may have been passed down through many generations, mainly from mother to daughter.
      He added that the prayer jewels haven’t been studied much due to the personal nature of their use.
      Washington, D.C., hosts one of the largest Ethiopian communities outside Ethiopia, and has several Ethiopian Orthodox and Catholic churches and cultural centers, making it the best location to donate the manuscripts.
      Ethiopian Religion
      Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, with the majority of Christians belonging to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
      However, there are other small religious communities in the country, including Muslims, Judaists, and Pagans. There is also a minority section of Christians who are Roman Catholics or Protestants.
      Many Ethiopians still use the prayer scrolls for protection and healing. They are often inscribed with prayers, spells, and charms to offer protection to their specific owner.
      The text on these “magic” scrolls is often derived from the bible, which is why the majority of churches in the country tolerate despite their connection to magic.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.




×
×
  • 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.