JW Insider

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

The Huffington Post is oblivious to this. It celebrates her BDSM as a triumph of the human spirit. From their point of view, there is nothing sordid about it at all. This article tells me more about the Post than it does about the Witnesses.
The portion of the story quoted is only that which makes the Witnesses look bad, so it is reasonable to think that is the intent or whoever quoted it. But the article in its entirety celebrates humanism more than it seeks to put down religion. Her JW upbringing is just setting the stage for the main event.
No, I don’t think she is blaming, either. The “context” is supplied by whoever quoted just the Witness portion of the article. She views her life as a triumph. So does the Post. Whatever ‘blame there is may be implied by detractors who hope to embarrass Witnesses by pointing to her “downward spiral” and what a fat reward THAT is for a JW upbringing. The Post is trying to have it both ways; impute shame over a “backwards” Witness upbringing while at the same time painting BDSM favorably. Given that they feel BDSM is a triumph, they might just as easily praise her JW upbringing for lining up the circumstances to lead her to it.
Essentially, the parents are guilty of living their faith. They may or may not have had their personal quirks to heighten or lessen theocratic training. It isn’t easy to raise kids. All are different. This story is no more than “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things.” Do you think Demas thereafter reminisced of how balanced those early Christians were? Or did he paint them as narrow, repressive, even brainwashing? The Post is happy to discard faith. All its focus is on the here-and-now.
Surely there is a tragedy in settling for a life of atheism, but the article conveys none of it. Rather, it conveys just the reverse. It’s a little like the guy who loses millions in the stock market. “Oh well, they were just paper gains anyway,” he says, as he celebrates the few thousands he has left.
That is what’s “wrong” with the article. It celebrates the amoral short term, completely oblivious to the long term—the “real life” as Paul puts it.

You are so malignantly obtuse.
The following two paragraphs appear in the book:
"The things Jehovah’s Witnesses have reinterpreted, or even flip-flopped on, are all superfluous things, the trimmings on the tree, and not the tree itself. The essential doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses that distinguish them from any other religion have been solidly established for over 100 years—teachings that the Trinity is unscriptural, for example, and that the soul does not live on after death. These are the important points that one should focus on. Among the basic tenets discerned 100 years ago is that human salvation is not the prime issue before all creation; rather, the vindication of God’s name and purposes is. It is a huge distinction. To overly carry on as though one’s own personal salvation is paramount invariably pushes ones toward being self-centered.
"Governing Body members take heart that blunders aplenty are to be found in Scripture—so that if they make a few, they feel right at home. In the first century the word went out among the congregations that the apostle John would not die until the Lord’s return. It took John himself to set the record straight. He didn’t bother doing so until nearing the end of his life. Perhaps he had thought it himself."

you do know that they were "rulers " do you not? The Sanhedrin had tremendous power.  They had so much power that Felix and Festus were trying to appease them and were planning to give Paul to the sanhedrin....... when Paul understood what they were up to, he asked for justice from Caesar.

Excellent use of scripture to illustrate the status of natural Israel  subsequent to the rejection of Christ.

I would say that God rejected Israel as a nation, but not as individuals. 
Why would he have Jerusalem destroyed in he did not reject it. It wasn't just the place destroyed but the people and the records of their inheritance. I'm sure I've read somewhere that after the destruction in 70C.E. none of the Jews could prove their birth line / family tree.  God replaced physical Israel with Spiritual Israel. 

Unfortunately, most Israelites failed to allow themselves to be led by the Law to Christ ( Matthew 23:15; John 1:11 ). That is why Jehovah God rejected that nation and caused the birth of 'Israel of God'. In addition, he invited non-Jews to become full citizens of this new Israel ( Galatians 3:28; 6:16 ). - https://wol.jw.org/hr/wol/d/r19/lp-c/1995484
 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew... - Rom 11
 

Yes, but Jesus fixed everything by making the Net work. 
(John 21:11) . . .And though there were so many, the net did not burst.
 

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

I guess how people will be in conflict about "give God and give Cesar", because this are Two Masters you have to please :)) and Bible is very clear with command to JW members; obey, be in subjection to secular government :))

Your answers give that impression. So for once in recent history  I agree with JWI

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. . ."
 

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. . ."
 

This doesn’t entirely make sense. If it is true, then the JW mentioned is an atypical outlier. The suit would certainly not have Branch support. The Witnesses overall consider alternative service laws a very good bargain and are appreciate of them. Typical of their responses is this:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/taiwan/successful-alternative-service-conscientious-objectors/
As to individuals, I have never heard anyone speak against such laws. Instead, every instance I know of is people likewise appreciative of them and glad to cooperate. Like this Russian brother in the Heart and Soul broadcast: (It is one remark in a 30 minute program, probably not worth the time to search it out, but the program is worth streaming on its own merits.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1659
The wording is odd: “The petitioner has been known as a believer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who was recognized by the Supreme Court as a conscientious objector last year.” Why the past tense? Probably he is ex-JW KickFace himself.

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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th 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 37th 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 37th 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37th 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15th 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 1st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.
 
On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37th 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 15th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1st 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 1st 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 1st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th 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 (3rd ed. 1998, 4th 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 1st to at least the 29th 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 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5o [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 13th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1st 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

So PM (Pekka Mansikka) recognizes that this eclipse was stated by the scribe to be not visible, and that scholars match it to July 4, 568. BCE, which is Simanu 15, 568 BCE.
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. However, it could be uncertain whether the entry related to this lunar eclipse was written in real time in 568 BC. Why? Because then one would have to draw the conclusion that the aforementioned positions of the moon and planets are also written down in real time.
Wait! Almost all the lunar data on the tablet are a good match for 568. Except for the Nisanu 8/9 "typo" and a couple other difficult readings that PM doesn't mention. However, even Furuli admits that the planetary data is a good match for 568 (and not the 588 date he and the WTS would have hoped for). But PM says that because of a couple of minor typos, we can now imagine that there is uncertainty about the persons who were assigned to observe and write down their observations. PM wants us to believe that perhaps none of these were ever real-time observations. And why not? Because then we would have to accept that all of them were. (And we don't want that because it would be evidence that this tablet is actually for the year it says it is.)
Such a convoluted bit of circular reasoning! PM admits that there are obvious observations on the tablet. Even if they are as mundane as a sick fox getting into the city, or a wolf that gets in and kills a couple of dogs. He thinks these probably belong to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as claimed. But the lunar data and the planetary data on the same tablet keep pointing to 568 BCE, which is the same place all the other Neo-Babylonian archaeological data also points to. So how do we get rid of this evidence against the WTS theory? Simple. We are asked to assume that the perfectly good 568 data for a lunar eclipse might not have been checked for, simply because the observer knew it was predicted to be not visible anyway. Yet, we have absolutely no evidence that the observer decided not to check for this eclipse. So why do we decide that he didn't? Because then we would have to admit that the other lunar and planetary data had been observed. (And that would be devastating to the WTS theory about 607. )
But then PM goes right ahead and contradicts himself anyway, and says that the line actually refers to a lunar eclipse that was observed in 588. Furuli's book calls this the "point of departure." PM paraphrases that idea by calling it the "one 'small' exception."
This involves a very serious mistake. The inscription at the beginning of the clay tablet “the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule” is incorrect.The positions of the moon and planets in the starry sky described in this clay tablet were realized several years after the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. However, there is one, “small” exception to this. It has been estimated that this lunar eclipse would have taken place on 15 July 588 BC.6 In that case, it could be a real-time entry and would be part of the “historical data” listed earlier. However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May.
Of course, the confusion in PM's logic is directly inherited from the same confusion in Furuli. And there actually never was a predicted but unobserved eclipse in the third month of 588. Furuli tried hard to make one up by shifting the Babylonian calendar by one month. It was a clever plan because an unobserved eclipse will have no data associated with it, and should therefore be easier to "match" to any other unobserved eclipse. And all eclipses fall pretty much on the same day of the month, too, from the 13th through the 15th. So it was a good plan, but 588 did not have an eclipse in the third month. But it did have an eclipse in the 4th month. So all Furuli had to do was shift the Babylonian calendar to a place it had never been before, and say that the 4th month was actually the third month in 588.
Of course, Furuli got "caught" trying to start the year in May, which had never been evidenced in many centuries of astronomical data left to us by the Babylonians. Even PM has to admit above: "However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May."
Ann O'maly already pointed out the strange mix of honesty and dishonesty when the authors of the pro-WT-theory site called vat4956.com were confronted by this objection: (You can see the page at VAT 4956 - Can be dated 20 years earlier to 588 BC instead of 568 BC)
Common counter-arguments for the year 588 BC
A Babylonian year never started as late as May
Not according to Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. – A.D. 45. The latest a year starts during this period according to them is April 26th, just 7 days earlier than May 2nd.
To me this is a not-so-cleverly dishonest way possible of wording this, because they pretend that an authority agrees with them, and then when they quote the authority, you have to be careful to note that the authority disagrees with them. They realize that most of their readers who will believe them have a bias that would allow them to miss the dishonesty out of one side of their mouth, while admitting the authority disagrees with them out of the other side.
There was another snag in Furuli's theory that this other 588 eclipse was NEB37. Another tablet that I already tested (in another topic, LBAT 1420) lists the same unobserved eclipse, except that it names it for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, 20 years earlier, just where we would expected it based on the archaeology. But, to make things worse for Furuli and PM, that tablet also had an observed eclipse in the same year. That provides even more sure evidence that Furuli's attempt was impossible and short-sighted.

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.

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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th 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 37th 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 37th 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37th 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15th 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 1st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.
 
On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37th 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 15th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1st 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 1st 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 1st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th 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 (3rd ed. 1998, 4th 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 1st to at least the 29th 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 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5o [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 13th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1st 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 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

So PM (Pekka Mansikka) recognizes that this eclipse was stated by the scribe to be not visible, and that scholars match it to July 4, 568. BCE, which is Simanu 15, 568 BCE.
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. However, it could be uncertain whether the entry related to this lunar eclipse was written in real time in 568 BC. Why? Because then one would have to draw the conclusion that the aforementioned positions of the moon and planets are also written down in real time.
Wait! Almost all the lunar data on the tablet are a good match for 568. Except for the Nisanu 8/9 "typo" and a couple other difficult readings that PM doesn't mention. However, even Furuli admits that the planetary data is a good match for 568 (and not the 588 date he and the WTS would have hoped for). But PM says that because of a couple of minor typos, we can now imagine that there is uncertainty about the persons who were assigned to observe and write down their observations. PM wants us to believe that perhaps none of these were ever real-time observations. And why not? Because then we would have to accept that all of them were. (And we don't want that because it would be evidence that this tablet is actually for the year it says it is.)
Such a convoluted bit of circular reasoning! PM admits that there are obvious observations on the tablet. Even if they are as mundane as a sick fox getting into the city, or a wolf that gets in and kills a couple of dogs. He thinks these probably belong to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as claimed. But the lunar data and the planetary data on the same tablet keep pointing to 568 BCE, which is the same place all the other Neo-Babylonian archaeological data also points to. So how do we get rid of this evidence against the WTS theory? Simple. We are asked to assume that the perfectly good 568 data for a lunar eclipse might not have been checked for, simply because the observer knew it was predicted to be not visible anyway. Yet, we have absolutely no evidence that the observer decided not to check for this eclipse. So why do we decide that he didn't? Because then we would have to admit that the other lunar and planetary data had been observed. (And that would be devastating to the WTS theory about 607. )
But then PM goes right ahead and contradicts himself anyway, and says that the line actually refers to a lunar eclipse that was observed in 588. Furuli's book calls this the "point of departure." PM paraphrases that idea by calling it the "one 'small' exception."
This involves a very serious mistake. The inscription at the beginning of the clay tablet “the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule” is incorrect.The positions of the moon and planets in the starry sky described in this clay tablet were realized several years after the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. However, there is one, “small” exception to this. It has been estimated that this lunar eclipse would have taken place on 15 July 588 BC.6 In that case, it could be a real-time entry and would be part of the “historical data” listed earlier. However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May.
Of course, the confusion in PM's logic is directly inherited from the same confusion in Furuli. And there actually never was a predicted but unobserved eclipse in the third month of 588. Furuli tried hard to make one up by shifting the Babylonian calendar by one month. It was a clever plan because an unobserved eclipse will have no data associated with it, and should therefore be easier to "match" to any other unobserved eclipse. And all eclipses fall pretty much on the same day of the month, too, from the 13th through the 15th. So it was a good plan, but 588 did not have an eclipse in the third month. But it did have an eclipse in the 4th month. So all Furuli had to do was shift the Babylonian calendar to a place it had never been before, and say that the 4th month was actually the third month in 588.
Of course, Furuli got "caught" trying to start the year in May, which had never been evidenced in many centuries of astronomical data left to us by the Babylonians. Even PM has to admit above: "However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May."
Ann O'maly already pointed out the strange mix of honesty and dishonesty when the authors of the pro-WT-theory site called vat4956.com were confronted by this objection: (You can see the page at VAT 4956 - Can be dated 20 years earlier to 588 BC instead of 568 BC)
Common counter-arguments for the year 588 BC
A Babylonian year never started as late as May
Not according to Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. – A.D. 45. The latest a year starts during this period according to them is April 26th, just 7 days earlier than May 2nd.
To me this is a not-so-cleverly dishonest way possible of wording this, because they pretend that an authority agrees with them, and then when they quote the authority, you have to be careful to note that the authority disagrees with them. They realize that most of their readers who will believe them have a bias that would allow them to miss the dishonesty out of one side of their mouth, while admitting the authority disagrees with them out of the other side.
There was another snag in Furuli's theory that this other 588 eclipse was NEB37. Another tablet that I already tested (in another topic, LBAT 1420) lists the same unobserved eclipse, except that it names it for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, 20 years earlier, just where we would expected it based on the archaeology. But, to make things worse for Furuli and PM, that tablet also had an observed eclipse in the same year. That provides even more sure evidence that Furuli's attempt was impossible and short-sighted.

It was an Apple, but with extremely limited memory. Just one byte and then everything crashed.

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 )
Thus, as there are exactly 154 canonical eponyms between Gargamisaiu and Bur-Sagale, which is dated 763 BCE, that involves to date the one of Gargamisaiu into 609 (= 763 – 154).        The only solar eclipse over Assyria during the period 800-750 is the total eclipse dated June 15, 763 BCE. The partial solar eclipses dated June 4, 800 BCE and June 24, 791 BCE were not able to be viewed over Assyria. 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.   Gertoux provides an exact fit for the chart I provided earlier. He even has an extra few verified points that I had not checked yet, such as dating year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar to 563/2 and year 5 of Nabopolassar to 621 and the battle of Harran to 609 (Nabopolassar's 17th year), etc. I will add the green highlight in the top row after I have checked these myself.                                                                                                                                                                                                     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