JW Insider

17 hours ago, Arauna said:

Please explain what I did wrong.  I am prepared to listen to you if you really have superior insight!  I merely commented that it was a lie and not a different opinion.

(Proverbs 26:17) Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who [meddles in] a quarrel that is not his.

I have had hundreds of very similar exchanges with Allen/Billy/Cesar/D../E../F../etc., and, by explaining, might even be able to divert some of his sneering hatred back over to me instead of you.

First of all, you did nothing wrong. I see two possibilities here:

1. Cesar simply made a mistake when he misunderstood your post: he saw a response to something that made him think you were accusing him of lying, when you were obviously referring to Srecko. But as many of us have seen 1,000 times (probably not an exaggeration) Cesar has never been able to admit his own mistakes no matter how obvious they are to others.
2. It is also possible that Cesar understood, and actually did see that you were referring to what Srecko said but he objected to you contradicting him when he had said that it was Srecko's "opinion" and you said that it was more than just Srecko's opinion, it was a "lie."

All of us probably have some sensitivity towards what people say based on what we think of other things they have said. Everyone carries some "baggage." Sometimes I have found that it is easier to understand an exchange of ideas more objectively by imagining the exchange of ideas in a different context outside the forum, or by paraphrasing the meaning instead of the exact words, and even removing (or mentally swapping) the names of persons involved in an exchange.

I'll imagine two sisters (Sister "A" and Sister "B") going on a return visit to a woman (Woman "C") who has shown interest, but who has now learned something that disturbs her.

Woman C : But it looks like the WT writers can revoke previous teachings any time just by saying that "new light" has shined upon them.

Sister A : You are thinking something false, this conjecture that the WT is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Sister B : Yes, [Sister A is right] ... and it's not just false conjecture or "just an opinion," it's really a blatant lie to say that the WT has changed scripture.

---------------The actual relevant portions of the exchange-----------

Srecko: WTJWorg religious teachers, scholars with GB+Helpers, "revoking" past and present teachings (each time a “new light” shines on them)

Cesar: The false statement here is your conjecture to say, the Watchtower is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Arauna: it is a lie - not opinion.  

50 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Um, hold on a minute JWI. You are wrong here and I've even said so on this forum. I have said that the GB, in my opinion, are not of the True Anointed. But as for others ............. 

I can explain myself, but I admit that I made a mistake here: I do accept that you have been fairly consistent for a long time in basic agreement with Witness on this point. And I admit that I exaggerated your position, and misrepresented the position you have been making very clear for well over a year, at least.

It's true that the account "4Jah2me" has been consistent about accepting the idea that the "True Anointed" are likely included among the JW Memorial partakers, but not limited to these persons. "John Butler" made some of the same points over a year ago, but did not start out that way, from what I remembered. Even "4Jah2me" would say things like what you said to Arauna recently under another topic: 

16 hours ago, Witness said:

The anointed "Israel" resides in the WT and JWs know it.    That is the only difference about this organization than say, Mormonism.  The end prophesies concern God's holy people.

I also believe that true anointed persons make up a portion of the WTS. And I see no evidence that there would be any true anointed persons found among Mormons. I'm not trying to be a judge of who is and isn't a "true anointed" but I'm just giving an opinion based on evidence I've seen.

But this view of yours is a fairly unique view among ex-JWs (and the JW acquaintance of mine who is now an ex-elder). It's one of those things that probably made/makes no sense to "John Butler" and "4Jah2me" even though those accounts have often sided with your critiques, but have also been very vocal about not believing that "true anointed" are to be found among JWs.

When you say the anointed "Israel" resides in the WT, you also admitting that the truly anointed persons reside in the WT, but that they must also "get out of her." This means that the true anointed ("Israel") must pass through the WTS and then realize that they are in the wrong place and must get out of her. This also appears to associate the WTS directly with Babylon the Great.

But I admit that I still can't follow the logic:

How did the truly anointed "Israel" (God's people) get into the WTS in the first place? What attracted them? If they were attracted for good reasons, or necessary reasons, but must now come out, then the WTS acts as some kind of trap. There must be something special about the WTS that produces or attracts these anointed to stay in the first place. But if they continue to stay and don't come out, then whatever attracted them was a trap! If Satan is allowed to test them within the WTS then was it Satan who made this trap? Or do you think that the WTS is a good place for all anointed to pass through, assuming they also see that it is not a good place to stay, because they must get out of her? How long is the right amount of time to stay? What happens if whatever was supposed to to attract them to the WTS works, and gets them into the WTS, but they die just before realizing that they were also supposed to "get out of her."

If one looks at the Hebrew Scriptures as a pattern, then God's people (Jews/"Israel") were forced into exile in Babylon as a punishment. Many stayed in Babylon and survived as "Babylonians" for a few years. Some even thrived as Babylonian/Persian citizens for centuries, and the worldly comforts and economy of Babylon held them "captive" from restoring pure worship in Jerusalem with their fellow Jews.

This is why I don't think of Babylon the Great as a specific religion or group of false religions, but as a world of materialism and false ideologies of all kinds: the "world and its desire." This can definitely include all false religion (the general JW doctrine) but now that "location" is not the issue for pure worship, the idea of Babylon, Rome and Jerusalem must be spiritual concepts in Revelation:

(John 4:21-24) . . .Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

Spiritually speaking, then, Sodom and Egypt, and Rome and Babylon have meanings in Revelation that are associated with their earlier "OT" counterparts. True Christians, whether heaven-bound or not, anointed or not, must get out of Babylon because she represents the "center" of a world of false religious beliefs, false ideologies, political associations, the commercial centers and ideologies. Like you, I believe this is happening now, because true Christians have conquered the world spiritually. As Jesus said, "I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven."

(John 16:33) . . .. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world.”

(1 John 2:14-17) . . .because you are strong and the word of God remains in you and you have conquered the wicked one. 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

(1 John 5:4) 4 because everyone who has been born from God conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith.

(Romans 8:37-39) 37 To the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious ["more than conquerors" KJV] through him that loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I don't see anything in the context of Revelation's depiction of Babylon the  Great that would limit it to a specific religion. I see it as something much bigger. I see it as the way in which Christians should know that the last world empire (e.g., "Rome") has already fallen for them, spiritually.

On 2/21/2021 at 6:08 PM, xero said:

I wondered why people who didn't believe JW's had anything to offer would expend so much energy attacking them. I mean if what JW's have is vomit, then why go back and spend time examining the vomit?

You were able to get right to the point in the way you worded the question. I tried the same question once with "Witness" because I also know someone else who has all kinds of problems with various doctrines and practices of the WTS, but who also expends so much energy on those problems. He is so negative that I have come very close to asking him why he hangs in there. He believes, of course, there is something special about the Witnesses, and believes that Jehovah is still using them. He expects "something very significant" to happen soon, centered around the WTS.

This appears to be similar to the thinking of "Witness" in that she believes that true anointed persons will be attracted to the WTS, where they will be tested because Jehovah has allowed a distortion to occur within the WTS organization. So she has this idea that it is, to some extent, an organization used by Jehovah, but only up to the point of attracting truly anointed persons to go through a test. But this implies that Jehovah tests in a way that entices persons into a trap, which I think is impossible, according to James:

(James 1:12, 13) . . .on becoming approved he will receive the crown of life, which Jehovah promised to those who continue loving Him. 13 When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.

The other (ex-elder) I know has hinted at an idea in his case that perhaps Jehovah might use him personally as a means to correct things. And he writes to the WTS regularly. I think putting oneself personally into such an equation is the most problematic part. I haven't heard anything directly from "Witness" that implies she thinks she has a personal responsibility in this regard or if she thinks it might be true of a "prophetess" named "Pearl" whom she often quotes.

I guess it would be hypocritical to condemn on this idea alone, since all of us feel a personal responsibility to copy the example of Ezekiel as a "watchman." In that example, the person who feels they need to share a scriptural warning should feel a personal responsibility to share it.

There is a person on a site who calls himself the "Watchman" (or is it e-Watchman), and I think this is their own argument about Watchtower criticisms. In any case, they all must think there is something very special about the WTS so that their energy goes against it instead of being equally shared among the problems of Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, etc. 

There was another "Ezekiel Watchman" who regularly wrote to Fred Rusk at Bethel in the 1970's. Fred Rusk was the primary Watchtower magazine editor during those years, and although he laughed at most of the "Ezekiel Watchman" rants, he took them seriously enough to read through them before tossing them. He even shared one of the 10-page papers with me once. (We worked near each other, and he gave half of my wedding talk.)

I don't have the impression that anyone at WTS HQ reads this site. But, who knows?

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Once again, showing that all of those that have made predictions, are not of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. 

I think you would have removed several of the apostles from this designation if you had lived in the first century. When Jesus failed to perform any significant miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) I can just see you saying: "Well, it's not him, we still have to wait for a True Anointed. Maybe in 5 to 10 years."

Trolling "logic." @Matthew9969

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Did you mean to say higher education?

Yes. Thanks. Hope no one was confused. Now I finally understand why CC gave me the downvote. 😉

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And they did so again to say 'before the end of the century. Before the year 2000.

Yes. But they stopped pointing to the end of the century back in the late 1980's as far as I remember. So in the 1990's one could only get this by implication, not from anything directly. So you didn't have a bunch of people actually getting closer to 1998, then 1999, who would start to say it must be by the year 2000 or 2001.

And it wasn't the GB trying to get attention by continuing to "cry wolf" as you said above. That would be a sure way to get people to stop paying attention, just like it works out in the story of the boy who cried wolf. It more likely shows that the GB were so sure it was true that they were willing to risk revealing how sure they were, and therefore risk not being paid attention to. I think they would only do that if they thought it was important.

On the other hand, I wish they didn't think that telling us how close we are to the end was so important. The point should always be how close we might be to the end so that we are prepared --not by thinking about signs and chronology-- but so that we are prepared by thinking about what sort of persons we ought to be. Development of true Christian character (i.e., love for God and neighbor) has always been much more important than trying to find visible signs upon which to hang our faith in the promises.

On 2/5/2021 at 4:55 PM, Isabella said:

In Paradise, we’d build log cabins, make friends with wild animals and spend our time picking fruit with other Jehovah’s Witnesses. This was all lovingly illustrated for us in the Jehovah’s Witness literature. . . . “I was expecting the world to end in five years maximum,” she says.

Many ex-JWs and opposers obsess over the fact that the Watchtower promoted these same expectations for the mid-1970's with a focus on the year 1975. My 3 children were all born in the period from the mid-to-late 80's, and I saw this same view beginning in my own children, matching that of the 11-year old "version" of the girl above.

To those of us who had been Witnesses during the 1975 period, most of us probably thought it refreshing that there was no longer a specific set of years being pointed to any more, and we seemed "safe" from date-setting. But even young children picked up on the idea that all this "suffering" for the sake of the kingdom was only for a few short years, and there would never be a need to learn how to make a living in this system of things. It really did change their outlook on school and career and marriage and providing for one's family. "Jehovah will provide" became a catchphrase of sisters who assumed that brothers with good jobs would be coming into the truth in time to make good marriage mates if somehow the system lasted long enough for them to need a husband with "means." I dreaded that this kind of attitude would influence my own daughter.

My own experiences with respect to 1975 might be considered sad to outsiders, but I don't look back at them with any remorse. I was baptized in 1967, and was still 15, almost 16, when I quit school in 1973 to begin f-t pioneering. I took to heart the Watchtower's counsel and advice that the system had only a few months after this 1975 period, not years. The commendations for selling houses and pioneering affected my family too. My father didn't believe in the 1975 hype, and even got in trouble (from the D.O.) after a circuit assembly talk, by adding that Jesus' words (about no one knowing the day or the hour) showed how we should also be balanced. That was rather unforgettable, but my father still sold our house and moved us into a rented house in 1974, so that my mother could begin f-t pioneering, too.

On 2/5/2021 at 4:55 PM, Isabella said:

from having to become a window cleaner.

My brother started an office-cleaning business in 1974 as many other pioneers had done. Only, he didn't pioneer himself but kept expanding the business with more accounts and ended up providing jobs for about 20 pioneers. He finally sold the business for about $20,000 to a full-time pioneer (in '77).  I'm sure that the number of new businesses across the country called "Pioneer Cleaning Services" shot up considerably in this period. A lot of people probably don't know that "Rug Doctor" was started this way, and my brother was good friends with the Witness founder. Their web site only says that it was started more than 43 years ago (implying before 1977) but it was actually started in 1974/5.

In 1977, my Bethel roommate, my brother, and the daughter of one of the Rug Doctor partners were the only people I knew (at the time) who had been invited to Bethel without any full-time pioneering experience.

They had all involved themselves either in learning computer science or electronics (programmable microprocessor controllers) in my brother's case. So after Bethel, I got a bachelor's degree in computer science. The congregation and the elders were very prejudiced against it, but as long as I kept full-time pioneering during college I got away with it.

Times are a bit different again, and college is definitely no guarantee of a better job. It often brings unnecessary debt and stress. But I never discouraged college for my three children and, as things turned out, I'm currently glad I didn't. But there is still a lot of prejudice against pioneering in most congregations I know.

My kids all had music, orchestra, and choir in high school, and kept their skills up for another few years in college. They would draw the line at national anthems, too, but rarely bowed out of any other songs or performances. So much music is permeated with religious or political foundations anyway that it would be impossible to completely separate from it without getting out of orchestra or choir altogether. I think that most Witnesses compromise and hardly realize it when they participate in American high school music classes especially.

In the above video from reddit, the CIA guy interviewed after the exposure in the 1975 "Church Commission" should be watched to the end, as he shows how their method is always to plant a few true stories for every false one. You can plant them in a willing or "vulnerable" place and then easily leverage that initial false story from a small paper somewhere to be repeated in a larger newspaper where some journalist is on the CIA payroll -- and he says 700 well-known journalists were. Then when the story is printed in that bigger paper, backed up by the local paper reporting, it is picked up by the Associated Press and UPI and easily makes it to every paper in the country.

And the purpose? He says that even though they didn't know of a single atrocity in one country, they reported them anyway . . . "to create the illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast."

Yes, but Jesus fixed everything by making the Net work. 

(John 21:11) . . .And though there were so many, the net did not burst.

On 1/24/2021 at 7:34 PM, TheWorldNewsOrg said:

Never forget the NYT won a Pulitzer Prize for denying that the Holodomor existed.

NYT had to rescind the statements that produced the Pulitzer for the BLM-adjacent 1619 Project, too. Effectively losing the value of the Pulitzer.

I know that this is controversial, but there is still no evidence that any "Holodomor" existed. Terrible, horrific famine existed, of course, although it was sometimes as bad before the "Bolsheviks." The goal of the anti-Pulitzer push is based on some "dark" politics. Grover Furr has traced the thoroughly dishonest methods of Ukraine propagandists in the entire process. The source of the "propaganda" problem seems to boil down to the fact that  there are many Ukrainian nationals who are still very proud to be actual Nazis (as opposed to just neo-Nazi fascists) and they have had a huge influence on the Ukrainian government. The push for a "cemented" narrative has driven many of these Nazis to promote propaganda campaigns that would try to turn Stalin's worst mistakes into an "evil" that will be seen as even more evil than Hitler's Holocaust. In fact, the very name "Holodomor" was chosen to create a kind of subliminal verbal parity with the word "Holocaust." (It's not ultimately just about famine, which was very real, but about imputing evil motives for that famine.) Those who request real evidence (not just manufactured by tweaking true famine horror stories) will be called "Holodomor deniers."

Thanks for posting "How CIA lies to you." I have several times been tempted to post it along with the entire Congressional hearings from the 1970's that go with it. Those same tactics have been successfully used again by "East Turkestan" to create a yet-unproven narrative of horrific Uyghur persecution by China, probably also created from a few horror stories.

5 hours ago, Kick_Faceinator said:

Jehovah put these governments in place for the witnesses to be “in subjection” to, (Romans 13:1), but somehow they don’t believe this.

This has been a common theme of 4Jah2me's. The point about the GB and CSA have also been some of his pet peeves. I think the impression of Romans 13:1 is that we are subject to the secular authorities, including their laws, and punishments --but not that we subject ourselves to them as if their authority was above Jehovah's.

I think a more appropriate verse (allowing for conscientious alternative service) is the one Jesus gave here:

(Matthew 5:41) ". . . and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. . ."

The best explanation of what Furuli had tried to do was explained by COJ, even before COJ's explanation was confirmed by Hermann Hunger, the acknowledged expert in the field. I will include some additional context from COJ because it also helps explain why Furuli was so mixed-up in trying to promote the forgery idea: http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review.htm

Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions “represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.

Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology” and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE).

As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service. Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.

The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that were observed in the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.

------

On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that “the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?

A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary” proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in the year 568/567 BCE.

The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04, which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs. 

About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37^th year about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in that year. The reason for this is the following:

On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a “lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.

On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure” for  mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87 B.C.E. represent his year 37.”

In the traditional date for the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15^th of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I (Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1^st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1^st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1^st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.

On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE. According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1^st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1^st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1^st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1. (In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May 2, and May 3).

There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages 27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown Univeristy Press, 1956), the 1^st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75) began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1^st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1^st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III cannot be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is quite clearly wrong.

Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001). I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3^rd ed. 1998, 4^th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1^st to at least the 29^th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one that is uncertain.

The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-18) is dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H. Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:

“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

[Month] X, the 13^th, morning watch, 1 beru 5^o [before sunrise^?]

All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”

The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13^th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1^st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?

My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”

Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.

In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for 568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

PM mentioned the "typo" but didn't take it anywhere, yet. He leaves the idea hanging there while he changes the subject to "historical" data contained in the Diary:

Historical data On closer inspection of the structure of the clay tablet VAT 4956, it can be seen that it is very exceptional. It seems that this is mainly an astronomical dissertation of antiquity. But it also includes historical records.

Line 5 says:

[nisannu] 20th, in the morning, the sun was surrounded by a halo. Around noon ... A rainbow stretched in the east.

Lines 6 and 7 say:

From the 8th of month to the 28th, the river level rose 3 cubits and 8 fingers. 2/3 cubits [….] to the high flood [….] were killed on order of the king. That month, a fox entered the city. Coughing and a little risutu-disease

John Steele has written a lot about the general nature and the changing format of these diaries over the centuries. At the time of a 568 BCE astronomical diary, it was not 100% about astronomy. The day to day diaries could include river levels, grain prices, weather and other activities considered more or less significant. When the daily reports were collected, there was no need to include all the days where "nothing special happened today." But descriptions of sky events like halos around the moon, or perhaps even an exceptional rainbow might have been more than just mundane "history." One of the halo descriptions includes the name of a star covered within the 22 degree radius of the halo circle, and therefore helps us date the event (to 568). Also, a disease carrying fox that manages to get into a city with extremely high walls might have been more ominous to the Babylonian citizens than mere mundane history.

Over time the scribes became purely recorders and observers, with little interest in recording mundane events that might be somehow related to celestial observations. Ultimately, they just stuck with observations with no attempt to interpret the observations, or link heavenly observations with gods or omens.

Later, PM will try to use these types of items as if they have been somehow meshed in from a completely separate history of the year (588), but this ignores the fact that several such elements like these are not listed under their own lines but tied in with the astronomical observations on the same lines, on the same dates. No good reason is given for treating them separately as if they are from a different year. (A year that has no evidence going for it in the tablet.)

Nevertheless, PM says this about them, but at least admits that he is making an "assumption" about them just because they aren't purely astronomical observations:

Although this is dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, these lines 6 and 7 describe the end of the last month of the supposed 36th year of government. Many other lines can be found. Because of the things described in them, it is reasonable to assume that they describe historical, real-time recorded information. Indeed, this feature initially evokes great wonder when creating an accurate look at the astronomical markings on the clay tablet. Instead, one might assume that they were not written at the same time.

Then PM goes on to this topic, skipping several lines of the tablet:

Jupiter was above Scorpio This is a remarkable detail that has often been overlooked. Line 13 tells you what the view was like just when the third or simanu month began: Mercury passed below Mars to the East; Jupiter was above α Scorpii; What is the time of Jupiter's orbit around the sun? It is 11 years, 315 days, and 1.1 hours.⁴  Based on this, we can find out what years Jupiter can be found near the constellation Scorpio when we apply that term.

So, has PM skipped to this line to show us where, in one of the planetary observations, that a year outside of 568 might be intended? Because of the chart, I will include a picture of the text:

Jupiter Scorpio near the constellation  [chart above] Jupiter can be found there on the date 18th-22nd June 568 BC. It is also found near Scorpio from 544 BC, 556 BC, 580 BC. and 592 BC. Of these only in 568 BC. was a lunar eclipse. Based on this, one could make an estimate and conclude that the astronomical measurements of VAT 4956 date back to 568 BC.

That could be a let-down to some Witness readers. He agrees that this is about 568, not 588 which would please the WTS. (Of cource, Furuli also admitted that the planetary data matches 568, but resorted to the idea that it was "forged.")

The fact that the planet Jupiter hits the constellation Scorpio above the orbit just at the beginning of the simanu month is a very rare event. It repeats about every 150 years, with a few of these “hit” every 12 years. And what can be found out when it was mentioned above that Mars and Mercury were close together?

So above PM admits that he had no choice but to date this to 568. It's a very rare event. The chart showed that while Jupiter finds Scorpio just about every 12 years, it only happens at the beginning of the month Simanu (month III) every 150 years. And what about Mars and Mercury so close? Will we get another chance to see the WTS date of 586 evidenced here?

Mars and Mercury in front of the Lion In the clay tablet, VAT 4956 reads the following on line 12:

Mars and Mercury were 4 cubits in front of [Leonis ….]

This was at the end of the last day of the time of the ajaru month, in 568 BC this was 20th June. The orbit of Mars around the sun is 686 days, or about 1 year, 10 months, and 21 days.⁵ In the meantime, this similarity does not appear to be found in the other years mentioned earlier. At that point, the translator has marked the name of the constellation “Leonis” in square brackets. It could suggest that the name of that constellation in the clay tablet is a bit damaged. But when comparing the years in the table above, Mars and Mercury were not close in those other years at the beginning of the same month.

So, PM is still stuck with 568, the only year in which the first part of the data fits (Jupiter in Scorpio in month Simanu), and further confirmed with the next part of the planetary data (Mars and Mercury together in front of Leo). But next we can see why PM brought it up.

Admittedly, that mention in VAT 4956 “at a distance of four cubits” would not properly fit the year 568 BC either. Let’s take a small screenshot of this on the next page, which also shows the Virgo constellation next to it. Comparing that distance to the previous image from the 8th day of the month of Nisannu, it appears that Mars and Mercury were only one cubic distance from the constellation Lion. Because it seems likely that VAT 4956 describes in 568 BC. astronomical phenomena, this would seem to suggest that the second error of Babylonian astrologers.

It's because this is evidently the second mistake on the tablet. Possibly another typo. Just like the only previous example from the tablet, when Nisannu 8 lists either the wrong star or was a typo for Nisannu 9.

PM does not try for an explanation of these these two typos, and does not try to say that they both point to another year. But there is one more reading for the month of Simanu, and it's about an eclipse on the 15th of the month.

Lunar eclipse 568 BC The clay tablet VAT 4956 also states that there was a lunar eclipse on the 15th of the simanu month. July 4, 568 BC, has been applied to this lunar eclipse. This eclipse was not visible in Babylon. Line 17 describes this event as follows: 

A lunar eclipse which was omitted

Scholars generally believe that this lunar eclipse was predicted in advance, and now that the predicted time came, the Babylonian scribe stated that the eclipse was not visible.

So far, so good. We know from dozens of other eclipse reports that the expression "which was omitted" shows that the observers knew that an eclipse was predicted for the date, but expected to be invisible due to the time of day which would have put it below the horizon.

We can easily check an astronomy program to see if the Babylonians were right (as usual) about their eclipse predictions, and they were. So what is it that PM thinks he can do with this eclipse, that we don't already know? I think the jump in logic is so amazing that I will discuss it in another post by itself.

So, now we can return to Mansikka's comments regarding VAT 4956.

1. Clay tablet VAT 4956 The first line of this clay tablet says of its date: “In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.”² Scholars have applied the information in this clay tablet to 568 BC.³ It has been perhaps the prisoner’s justification for the present ancient chronology. However, it has major shortcomings. It is a pleasure now to present new researched information on this topic.

P.M. admits that the first line dates it to NEB37 and that scholars date it to 568 BCE.

• If NEB37 is 568 BCE, then NEB18 587 BCE. But the WTS says NEB18 is 607 BCE.

So the attack plan is usually the same. Ask readers to think that almost all NB chronology is justified from this one artifact. (It isn't.) And then start focusing on the "typo" without admitting that most of the data is an excellent fit for the archaeological supported date.

That's what P.M. does. Instead of pointing out that the opening rows actually start out with a perfect fit for 568 (and a bad fit for 588), P.M. skips down to the typo on line 3 and calls it "the opening rows." No mention that there is plenty of info on lines 1 and 2 and even additional info on line 3, that fits 568.

Nisannu The opening rows of the clay tablet state that the moon was on the 9th day of the 1st month, or Nisannu, about an elbow away from the constellation Beta Virginis, or Virgo, “in front of it”. From this, the may have been in front of the imaginary “face” of the Virgo constellation. It could also be “in front of it” a little diagonally, even below the “hand”. According to scholars, in 568 BC. this distance was on April 29, which was the 8th day of the month of Nisannu. Scholars have argued that the Babylonian scribe made a mistake at this point.

[picture of] Moon and Virgo constellation April 29, 568 BC. (8th Nisannu); Babylon, Iraq

If there is an error, what is the cause of that error? Or could it be that no mistake has been made in that matter? 

Very clever. Just like "Sally's father" who dismisses the majority of good readings just so he can make something out of the typo. This one date typo (or perhaps a correct date but a misidentified star in the same constellation) doesn't actually fit 588 BCE, anyway, which would be the WTS chronology goal. Furuli and others have tried to make it seem like it fits, but it takes so much inconsistent manipulation of the evidence that Mansikka has obviously given up. He has looked at the attempts to do this by Furuli but he could not make enough of them work, so he dismissed Furuli's ideas and came up with his own explanation. Good, so far.

But then Mansikka makes the most illogical blunders, and still somehow (of course) ends up with a conclusion (spoiler alert):

Thus, these historical data could come from the actual 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, i.e. 588 BC.

I'll deal with the in between stuff soon enough.

In the above "analogy," Sally's father flails wildly to make sure Sally's mother thinks that Sally's age-16 diary is fake, not Sally's. Or if it is Sally's it must be from when she was 11, not when she was 16. Yet it was marked "Sally . . . Age 16." And it contained information only appropriate for Sally. (Did I mention that only Sally had a south window next to the garbage cans?)

Sally's father makes up problems where there aren't any, resorts to specious reasoning, and focuses on an obvious small mistake and tries to make it negate all the rest of the diary. What would you think of such a man who could find dozens of correctly marked dates for 1996, but decides it must be another year altogether, because just one of the dates doesn't fit 1996?

I'm sure most everyone knows by now that very few Witnesses have been willing to publicly discuss the evidence from the VAT 4956 diary. And some have done so in a very similar manner to "Sally's father." They go immediately for line with the "typo" and a couple of mistaken or misunderstood readings, and "forget" to mention that the other 27 readings are just fine. But there are also at least a few Witnesses who have been willing to publicly discuss the evidence without resorting to wild flailing and tantrums. Here's Gerard Gertoux's take on it (uploaded in 2017). And, for good measure, I've included Gertoux's context because it includes his take on the 763 BCE solar eclipse which is so important to Pekka Mansikka: ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events )

• The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronisms, since the year of Assur-uballit II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.
• According to the biography of Adad-Guppi¹², mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele¹³ there were 54 years between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901)¹⁴ and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.
• Dated lunar eclipses¹⁵ are: year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (March 19/20 721 BCE,  March 8/9 and September 1/2 720 BCE); year 5 of Nabopolassar (April 21/22 621 BCE); year 2 of Samas-suma-ukîn (April 10/11 666 BCE); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562 BCE). A diary (VAT 4956)¹⁶ contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An astronomical journal (BM 38462)¹⁷ list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE.
• ------------Footnotes:-------------
• ¹² J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
  Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560-561.
  ¹³ P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
  in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.
  ¹⁴ J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22
  Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197.
  ¹⁵ F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation
  Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 99-100, 151-152, 206.
  ¹⁶ A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I .
  Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567).
  ¹⁷ H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6
  Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396.

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 here will already understand it even before I begin:

It's 2021. Sally is grown now, about 40 years old, born in 1980, and had already moved out of her parents' house 10 years earlier. But her mother finds the diary while cleaning the basement, and reads a few of the entries:

Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16.

• Monday, January 8. Got up at 2 am. Cold. Saw one of those circular halos around the moon, a gray frosty circle through the skylight in kitchen. Cool.
• Monday, January 29. Woke up around 1:30 am with TV on. Must have fallen asleep during Super Bowl. Wanted to see Joe Montana. Wonder who won?
• Thursday, February 29. Went out for pizza in afternoon with Sarah. Got back before sundown at 5:30. Stomach bothered me until well after midnight. Lactose intolerance?
• Friday, March 15. Raccoons rustling in garbage kept me awake. Looked out the south window with flashlight and one looked very sick. Might have rabies.
• Tuesday, July 30. Got up well before sunrise today. The moon was full and bright through my east-facing window.
• Wednesday, July 31. Slept in late this morning, rained all day, sun didn't come out until 7:30pm. Saw a very spectacular rainbow out my east window, just before sunset. Glad I didn't go to bed early.
• Thursday, Sept 4. Couldn't sleep. Rain pounded the skylight loudly and the street drain must have clogged. Because water was  several inches at the sidewalk and even came halfway up the driveway.

The mother shows the father, and says:

"Oh look at this dear. I found Sally's diary from when she was only 16. Let's see. What year was that? She was born in 1980, so that must have been 1996."

But the husband says:

"Now just wait a minute, dear. You are too trusting, too naive. We have 4 daughters, remember. We know that Sally was the one who had sleep problems, and she was the one with lactose intolerance, and she was our only daughter in the southeast bedroom with those two windows, and she was the only one who had a friend named Sarah, and she did kind of have a crush on Joe Montana. Why? I'll never know. But this diary might still be a product of deceit. Who says that this is really even about Sally? One of our other daughters could have been faking the name because they didn't want to use their own name for some reason, and wanted you to find this 20 years later. Besides, everyone knows that Super Bowls are on Sunday not Monday. And Sally didn't know that much about football, so it might have been a playoff game or some other game that Joe Montana was in. Let me look into this and try to see if it might be a fake."

Two days later, the husband has the "proof" that this is a fake diary:

OK, dear. Now I know that it must be fake.

1. When a TV is on just after midnight, most people see this as the date the TV was left on, Sunday, not Monday. Even TV Guide lists late night TV under Sunday night, even though the diary is technically right that it was Monday because it's after midnight.
2. On February 29, the sun went down at 5:45, not 5:30 as she stated in the diary. That mistake makes me suspicious, too.
3. The moon was not full until July 31, and she says it was full on July 30. I looked it up. So why would she say she saw the full moon?
4. And the final proof is that she said "Thursday, September 4," and September 4th was a Wednesday, not a Thursday. All the others are right for 1996 but this mistake shows it wasn't really written in 1996.
5. So I looked into it, and the most recent THURSDAY, September 4th was not in 1995, or 1994, or 1993, or 1992. It was in 1991. So this diary might be hers, but it MUST have been written in 1991, when she was only 11 years old.

The wife replies:

"But wait, dear. . . .

• 1991 was not a leap year with a February 29th.
• And Joe Montana was out for the 1991 season with a bad arm.
• And she probably wrote that entry about the Super Bowl on Monday morning, like she says. Joe Montana was in the Super Bowl the night before.
• And she said she got home before sundown at 5:30, not at sundown at 5:45pm.
• And the difference between the full moon on July 30 and the full moon on July 31st is negligible.
• And a lot of people accidentally write down the wrong day of the week, especially in the summer when they are not on a weekly school schedule -- you've done it yourself."
• And besides, there are 30 entries, these are just the first 5, and there are no problems at all with any of the others.
• And if she was only 11, why would she call it "Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16" ???

Husband:

Who are you to question your husband? You charlatan!!! You Devil-influenced apostate!!!

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I half expect the curtain torn away to reveal you controlling their marionette strings like the old guy running the Oz wizard.

"the OLD guy"?     😉

7 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep?

I hope no one got the impression that I wrote all that much in these last few posts. Most of this page is just quotes from others and a few lines with my comments interspersed.

Pekka Mansikka is not Furuli. But several of his arguments align with Furuli, and he references Furuli as a source. The arguments inherited from Furuli should be honestly evaluated before anyone takes them seriously. The author(s) at vat4956.com have paraphrased Furuli's arguments, and, most unfortunately, so did the Watchtower artilcle mentioned above:

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.