Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 1

Babylon vs Babylonia

I may be missing something, but isn't the most common English form of the country name "Babylon" rather than "Babylonia".

No. The country name is usually rendered either Babylonia or "The Babylonian Empire", at least in Ancient Near Eastern studies. "Babylon" is used as a metaphor to refer to more than the city in a similar way that "Washington" is used for "the USA", "the US Government" or "the Bush administration", although it's a good deal more common.

Opinion on Proper names

There is a wicked tendency of replacing the words 'Chaldea','Kardu' of the original of the gushum ('cuneiform') texts by other terms: Sumer, Babylon, Sumer and Akkad, Mesopotamia, Middle east, Ancient Near East... Also replacing the original 'the Buranun' and 'the Idigna' by other words (the Euphratus, the Tigris), god 'Utu' by Shamash. In those millenia the Nile valley was the kingdom of Kimet,the word Egypt was not used. Please stick to the original. This Great King of Kardu reconquered his national region at the Mediterranian that belonged to the Kardu before and after. Why mention the literary inventions like the bible and some Jehover's witnesses' inventions in this Encyclopedia, when there are inscriptions of this wonderful king in museums and his splended picture is also on the web.A better text is at www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaNebuchadnezzars_Babylon.html and his cameo is at www.bible-history.com/sketches/Ancient/nebuchadnezzar-cameo or go to www.bible-history.com and in its 'search' type "cameo of Nebuchadnezzar" user:samqharo@posta.ge

The Matrix

I don't know if this bit of trivia is relevant, but people might be interested in the fact that "Nebuchadnezzar" is the name of the rogue vessel in The Matrix -- DropDeadGorgias

Lifespan vs length of rule

How can it be that he lived 83 or 84 years if he lived from 630 b.c.e to 562 b.c.e.? That amounts 68 years, and not 84! Something must be wrong there...

Those are the dates of his rule and not lifespan.

Along the same lines as the age question, I thought people in those times lived shorter lives than us today? If so, how could Neb and Daniel live to be in their 80s? Isn't a Biblical Generation 40 years or so?

Nebuchadrezzar vs Nebuchadnezzar

I think this page ought to be at Nebuchadrezzar II. Any thoughts? john k 23:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it Nebuchadrezzar is the correct form and the only reason that the alternative form is common is because Daniel got it wrong. If that's true it most certainly should be moved. This is not a case like Pompey where there is the choice between taking the root or the nominative form, Pompeius. In this case it is simply incorrectDejvid 09:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it, then. john k 15:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HELP! How can you forward from "Nebuchadrezzar" to this Entry about an Successor(the second!) and thus prevent people writing about Nebuchadrezzar I.? Or are you saying both are the same? Most definitly not. --84.159.136.117 14:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The correct form of the name of this brilliant king will be apparent if the name used in his inscription in c u n e i f o r m script is attached here together with its transliteration,lemmatised.If it is 'Nepe Kalde Re Zar' as I happened to read in one of the articles, this would mean Nepe(King) of the Kalde=Chaldean,Kardunian) population and country'.The indegenous territory of the ethnicity of this king included lands that he reconquered out of the aliens-including Kimet in the Nile valley and naturally,the city Iebo renamed later 'Jerusalem'.the king's writing is a document, while 'the Bible' is a fairy-tale,a literary opus full of inaccuracies to suit its Jewish compilers.

Daniel certainly did not get it wrong and evidence (which I will produce) goes a long way to prove Daniel knowing this king and writing during Nebuchadnesser's lifetime

Anonymous contributions

Can someone with knowledge in this area verify the contributions by 202.92.183.69 and integrate them into an appropriate place in the article. Here's what was added to the very bottom of the article:

Cunieform tablets show Nebuchadnezzar did not subjugate Israel at the time of the battle of Carchemish. (625 BCE) He appointed Zedekiah, who ruled for 11 years, in his 7th year as King of Babylon, in 617 BCE, in the month Adar. Jehoiakim was still a vassal king of Egypt until Nebuchadnezzar's fifth year.

202.92.183.69, if you'd like this information to stay in the article, please cite a source and find an appropriate place in the text to put it; no one will see it way down there at the bottom! —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Date of siege of Jerusalem

I do not understand the evidence for this date for the fall of Jerusalem. This encyclopedia has the date of the return of the exiled Jews from Babylon to be 537 BC and since they were captive for 70 years then the date of their exile must be 607 or there abouts.

I just wanted to add the references of a seventy year exile are taken from Jeremiah 25:11,12; Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12, 7:5

Did you read the last section where it discusses this? See [1] for more specifics. Pfalstad 05:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/537_BC How can there be an agreement with the date of returning to Jerusalem if the date of the fall of Jerusalem is in disagreement by some 20 years? Shouldn't secular sources push up the date of the return by 20 years as well to correspond to 70 years in exile (which is well-testified)?

70 years in exile is well-testified where, besides the Bible? Secular sources seem pretty clear on the dates of the captivity.. Example [2], and here are Jewish sources [3], [4].

The final link is not coming up. Modern day Jewish references agree with secular claims, yet ancient Jewish historians like Josephus regarded the testaments in the 4 above mentioned Bible books to be accurate regarding a 70 year exile. (This also links up to the prophecies in Ezekiel of 390 and 40 years; which is related but confusing to those who are not Bible scholars of course.) 70 years also corresponds to the lifespans of Bible mentioned figures. From a strictly Biblical standpoint, 70 years couldn't be more reliable and the dates of all contemporary figures mentioned in the Bible can easily correspond.

The reasons for it not corresponding to the dates of secular history requires a great deal of research and way too much referencing than can be done here. However, a brief explanation of why I believe in the Biblical date of 607 vs. the secular date of 586 is as follows: Ptolemy's Canon is not reliable. The reigning dates of the Neo-Babylonian kings is not necessarily complete. Other archaeological sources found names of other Babylonian kings which are not listed by Ptolemy. Also, Polyhistor has Amel-Marduk/Evil-Merodach ruling for 12 years and Ptolemy says only 2 years. (and so on)

Ptolemy's canon relied on astrological evidence to smash in the reigns of the kings of the disputed time to correspond to a partial eclipse in 621. Yet, a complete eclipse took place in 641 and fits in much better.

This is just a *small* bit of evidence as to the unreliability of so-called verified sources. They conflict with one another more often than not and sometimes even within one encyclopedia. Yet, the Bible's dates are so specific about the month and even day of various events that it takes more blind faith to accept the ptolemaic timeline than the Bible's. The details in the Bible are solid, unembellished and collaborating and fill in gaps like this one: that the final 32 years of Nebuchadrezzar's reign no historical records have even been found except a fragmentary inscription about a campaign in Egypt in his 37th year. So I see little evidence to move the seige of Jerusalem up 20 years to fit into a partial eclipse when there is much stronger evidence that the exile was a full 70 years. (as the Bible says -to complete the sabbaths of the land)

Well, this is a secular encyclopedia, as you probably noticed, so we should stick with what the secular historians are saying. The first link above, [5], has a lot more evidence than just Ptolemy. Pfalstad 20:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading all of Alan Feuerbacher's notes it seems the seventy years still holds. It is only whether it was from some subjugation or total devastation that conflicts. And the dates around 537-535 are so agreed on that it cements the beginning of the 70 years as 607-605 and so what is the difference? He holds to the decade of 600s as being the start of the 70 years prophecies but disputes the level of destruction etc. The work is only to dispute and not to give any actual findings. Tearing someone's research down without having anything positive yourself is pathetic. If the interpretation of Bible prophecy is faulty then give the correct understanding! If there are no links from Daniel's time prophecies to other scriptures then how did the Jews know to look for the Messiah in 29 CE? If the other time prophecies and chronological citings in the Bible are just fluff then why are they there?

Maybe if the bible had spelled Nebuchadrezzar's name correctly I might take it more seriously as a babylonian history book. Look, wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, not a Bible encyclopedia, and secular sources as well as even the Catholic Encyclopedia agree on the date, so changing it to something else seems ridiculous to me.

I hate to rain on the 607 party, but Jerusalem's destruction did not happen in 607 BC, period and end of story. Just last night I finished weeks (maybe months) of research on this very subject, and it's really beyond discussion for anyone that isn't trying to prop up their religious beliefs, beliefs which are contradicted by the Bible itself, by the way. Instead of going over the seven billion lines of evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 BC, I'll just post the links I have bookmarked so all interested parties can read about it themselves:

http://www.towerwatch.com/articles/the_1914_doctrine.htm
http://www.607v587.com/websitepage4.htm
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/time.pdf (go to page 25, although the page itself says 23, and take a look at the distribution of Neo-Babylonian tablets that have been found, and read the preceding discussion about them)

That Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC, and Nebuchadrezzar didn't ascend to the throne in 624 BC, is not up for discussion except by fruitcakes and the fatally ill-informed. Hopefully our advocate here is of the latter. I should mention that until recently I was a Jehovah's Witness, as I can promise everyone our revisionist here is, but the weight of this evidence leads to no logical conclusion other than the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is thoroughly full of crap. It is likely that our revisionist is completely honest in believing what the Watchtower Society says and has simply been misled for years, as I was, but if he is honest, he will look at the actual evidence, all the mounds after mounds after mountains of it, and realize that he has been lied to all these years.--66.158.232.37 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Duno much about this, really, but i would think that if the jews were conquered by the babylonians, their historical records of the event would be more accurate than the greeks, ptolemy's canon, being greek and 300 years down the line!

If in 2600 years time, i had to bet who had the most accuracy date of this event either the americans or the mexicans;

(July 4, 1776) or (July 4, 1796)

Id say id have to go with the americans! Just doesnt make sense that a nation would record the wrong date it was conquered!

You have several misconceptions. First, the Jews didn't record the date of Jerusalem's capture, at least in any way that allows absolute dating (saying the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar doesn't mean much if you don't know when Nebuchadrezzar ruled, except that we do know when he ruled, no thanks to the Jews, and his 18th year was 587-586BC). Second, Ptolemy's Canon's name is actually a misnomer; he didn't come up with it, it was simply 'the' chronology of the time, which he simply wrote down (in a math book, if I remember correctly), and because of which it is now often named after him, although it has nothing to do with him other than him writing it down. Not that it matters, because Neo-Babylonian chronology can be completely and irrefutably established without it; the fact that Ptolemy's Canon agrees with what can be established separately is only a testament to how accurate that list of kings was. But if you had read the above links, you would of course already know all this.

       (quote::You have several misconceptions) 

I was just giving my opinion, by i hate arrogance so here we go again!

(quote: First, the Jews didn't record the date of Jerusalem's capture, at least in any way that allows absolute dating)      
  (saying the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar doesn't mean much if you don't know when Nebuchadrezzar ruled)

True but saying 70 years before 539 BC, a load of times is a date we can work with!

              (quote: which he simply wrote down (in a math book))

Ant thats your evidence, So you want to go with a "MATH" text book, that only deals with "whole" integer years! Hmmmm!

       (Not that it matters, because Neo-Babylonian chronology can be completely and irrefutably established without it; )

Name 1 other, independent "reliable" source!

              (But if you had read the above links, you would of course already know all this.)

The links concocted for the sole purpose of disproving the jehovahs witnesses! Ya, their gonna be reliable!

In summation!

1) You have 1 Greek "math" text book, written by a non mathematician; which only deals with "whole" integer dates (he probably couldnt divide [only joking]), written by a general in alexanders army 300 years after the fact,

2) You have 5 or 6 books all testifying to the fact that the jews were in captivity 70 years! Begs the question, "why would the captive survivors (some alive at the time of the occupation), lie about being in captivity 70 years"?

Which is more beleivable, a "non" mathematician made a mistake 300 years after the date; or the eyewitnesses recorded what happened? (172.213.175.30 19:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)).

A couple of points: 1) the Bible does not say that there were seventy years between Nebuchadrezzar's second capture of Jerusalem and the second year of Cyrus. It says there were seventy years of exile. Everyone except the Jehovah's Witnesses interprets this to mean seventy years from the sack to the completion of the 2nd Temple in 515 or so. Which, as it turns out, is seventy years. I've also seen people using 605 BC-537 BC, since 605 was the time when the first Jews were taken into exile by Nebuchadrezzar. Either way, you get about seventy years without messing with the traditional chronology. Even if we accept that the Bible means seventy years from destruction of the temple to Cyrus, there's no reason to believe this is anything more than an error, derived from Ezekiel choosing an idealized number, and a lot of others following it. 2) Ptolemy's Canon is not a Greek source written in the 2nd century AD. It is a copy of a Babylonian source, and wherever it can be checked its astronomical calculations and dates match those of other sources. 3) There are many other sources which support the Canon's dating. Berossus gives the exact same year totals for the Neo-Babylonian kings that Ptolemy does. The Assyrian eponym lists agree with the dates for the earlier part of the list, as well, so far as we can tell. There are cuneiform inscriptions of the various Neo-Babylonian monarchs which agree with the dating given by Ptolemy. Basically, every source we have gives 43 years for Nabu-kudurri-usur, 2 years for Amel-Marduk, 4 years for Nergal-shar-usur, a few months for Labashi-Marduk, and 17 years for Nabu-na'id. 4) the 539 date for Cyrus is based on exactly the same sources as the 605 date for Nebuchadrezzar. If we say that Ptolemy's Canon is not reliable for 747-539 BC, why should we believe it accurate for the Persian period? 5) Claudius Ptolemy was not a general of Alexander. He was an ancient astronomer. The Canon was a document used by astronomers to date astronomical events. This is why it only used whole years, and this is why we can have such confidence in it - all the astronomical calculations work out. The basic fact is, the JW are wrong, Ptolemy's Canon (and the other classical and cuneiform sources) are right, and it's as simple as that. john k 20:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Egyptian dates also contradict an earlier date for the sack. We know Egyptian dates securely back from the Persian conquest to the beginning of the 26th dynasty. Necho wasn't even pharaoh at the date the Battle of Carchemish would have to take place in the JW version. john k 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

         "I was just giving my opinion, by [sic] i [sic] hate arrogance so here we go again!"

You hate arrogance, and I hate ignorance. To each his own.

         "True but saying 70 years before 539 BC, a load [sic] of times is a date we can work with!"

The Bible doesn't say "70 years before 539 BC," so that is an irrelevant statement.

         "Ant [sic] thats [sic] your evidence, So you want to go with a "MATH" text book, that only deals with "whole" integer years! Hmmmm!"

No, that's one of like 700 parts of the evidence. Having undoubtedly read those links and educated yourself on this issue, I am sure you already knew that. Writing it in a book that was not devoted to history would indicate that the author was less likely to just be trying to push some personal version of history. Although, impartially, the type of the book doesn't matter, unless the purpose of the book was to push the author's own version of history, like Jehovah's Witness publications.

         "Name 1 other, independent "reliable" source!"

Spend time reading those links instead of running your mouth here and you'll have a lot more than "1 other, independent 'reliable' source!".

         "The links concocted for the sole purpose of disproving the jehovahs [sic] witnesses! Ya, their [sic] gonna be reliable!"

When you have an actual factual issue, you be sure to come back and let us know.

         "1) You have 1 Greek "math" text book, written by a non mathematician"

It turns out to have actually been an astronomical book, written by an astronomer. Had you recently read the links, you would know that.

         "which only deals with "whole" integer dates"

What is the relevance of that?

         "written by a general in alexanders [sic] army 300 years after the fact"

Bzzt, wrong answer.

         "2) You have 5 or 6 books all testifying to the fact that the jews were in captivity 70 years!"

That's certainly news to me.

         "Begs the question, "why would the captive survivors (some alive at the time of the occupation), lie about being in captivity 70 years"?"

Because it only happened in your imagination? Although technically, the very first Jews Nebuchadrezzar took in 605BC (18 years before the destruction of Jerusalem) would have been in captivity for 68 years.

         "Which is more beleivable [sic], a "non" mathematician made a mistake 300 years after the date; or the eyewitnesses recorded what happened?"

It's easy to shoot down an argument that you pull out of your ass, ain't it.66.158.232.37 05:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why you keep spouting about jehovahs witnesses is baffling me, this has nothing to do with 607,539, or jehovahs witnesses. The point is simple! All historians, have certain scientific principles they follow! Here we have 2 sets of documents, 1) First hand accounts 2) 2nd & 3rd hand accounts!

Ive never known any other historical dating ignoring 1st hand accounts in favour of 2nd hand accounts! The 2nd hand accounts, though they may have extrapolated accurate celestial dates to ascribe to their cannon, does not therefore mean the said cannon is correct!

Similarly i could use my laptop to work out where venus was 10,000 years ago, i could then say "such & such" a king was ruling then, the fact i got the position of venus correct doesnt automatically make my statement about the ruling monarch correct!

You mention Berossus, when really you should say "josephu's 1st century account of Berossus" as Berossus testemony is lost!

The main argument is the captivity! The biblical historical accounts say 70 years of captivity! How you can reason from external sources that this must mean (captivity + time at home building) beggers belief! When the 1st hand account itself say 70 year exile! (Not 60+years exile & a bit back home)

(:No, that's one of like 700 parts of the evidence. Having undoubtedly read those links and educated yourself on this issue, I am sure you already knew that. Writing it in a book that was not devoted to history would indicate that the author was less likely to just be trying to push some personal version of history. )

I only asked for 1 reliable source, and you didnt even find 1! and noone has put a reliable external source as requested above! I dont mean any crap like; "towerwatch" links or "607V5whatever"! I meant secular references i can verify!

The Hebrew cannon took great care to preserve the lineage of the kings, you could say it was an obsession! id say its history of that era is preserved quite well!

(172.200.236.152 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

Points: you continue to ignore the fact that the cuneiform sources fully agree with Berossus and Ptolemy. The fact that Josephus's quotation of Berossus and Ptolemy's Canon are, so far as we can tell, fully independent sources, and that their version also agrees with the cuneiform evidence (as noted in one of the anti-JW sites whose evidence you dismiss) is rather convincing. Did you notice the anti-JW site's citation of evidence based on Babylonian business inscriptions. Those inscriptions correspond almost exactly to the dates recorded by Ptolemy and Berossus, and nothing from them contradicts it (save a slight overlap between the very short reign of Labashi-Marduk and the reign of Nabu-na'id, which is explained easily enough.) Beyond this, you are imputing a lot to the Bible, which simply isn't specific on this point. Could you point me to the Biblical sources noting 70 years? The Book of Daniel doesn't count, because it is not a first hand account, and it is full of historical errors (again, Darius the Mede). You may think it is unlikely that the Bible would speak of 70 years of exile when the full exile only lasted 50 years. But, given the mass of other evidence that says that the period between the sack of Jerusalem and the accession of Cyrus was not 70 years, one can only assume that the Biblical references to seventy years are either inaccurate, or have to be interpreted as meaning something else. There is no other option. This has been understood not only by secular scholars, but by Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant biblical scholars as well. The claim that this is not about the Jehovah's Witnesses is ridiculous. Everybody other than the Jehovah's Witnesses accepts the standard chronology. And, again, this is not just based on Berossus and Ptolemy, but on a whole mass of cuneiform evidence, on astronomical retrocalculations, and so on and so forth. The Jehovah's Witnesses dates simply do not work, and we shouldn't discuss them in the article. john k 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm just going to have to assume you simply didn't read any of the links provided by your interlocutor. Sure, they are anti-Jehovah's Witness polemics. But that is because the only people who need to take the time to refute the idiosyncratic views of the Jehovah's Witnesses on Neo-Babylonian chronology are writers of anti-Jehovah's Witness polemics. This one, in particular, goes into a great deal of detail about the numerous, numerous documents that support the conventional chronology. Every single contemporary Babylonian document that we have supports the conventional chronology. That the classical accounts also generally support this chronology is just icing on the cake. The oldest texts of the Book of Jeremiah are from the 2nd (or 1st?) century BC. That is hundreds of years after the numerous Babylonian cuneiform documents that support the conventional chronology. At any rate, the Bible does not explicitly support the Jehovah's Witnesses chronology. It is only implicitly that this is done. For an example of the danger of imputing to much meaning to imprecise Biblical estimates of time, see the Seder Olam, the rabbinic chronology of world history from the 2nd century AD, which dates the fall of Jerusalem to 421 BC, and thus gives only about 50 years to the Persian period. There are Biblical verses that support such an argument. But it is universally rejected by historians, because it simply does not fit with the contemporary evidence. The Jehovah's Witnesses chronology is simply a slightly less bad version of the same thing. john k 21:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, the first hand evidence is overwhelming in this case and choosing to ignore first hand evidence shows a deep bias or non-scientific approach to historical dating!

Jer 25:11; Jer 29:10; Dan 9:2 References Ezra 2:1 & Ezra 1-3; 2Kings:8-11(Jeremiah is extremely specefic about the exact dates here, even naming day & month) Zech 7:5; Zech 1:12 This is post exile writing at the time of Jerusalems first governor under cyrus! 2 Chronicles 36:21&22 This is the 3rd to last book of the old testament to be completed!

In fact a thorough study of the "obsessive" chronology of the jews from king davids time onwards would give the exact period of exile; this could be worked back from the rebuilding of jerusalems walls!, and also forwards to the first century!

People scorn Daniel as a 2nd cetury fake, as Daniel is in the dead sea scrolls it cant be dated any later! But this doesnt explain how ezekiel mentions him by name at Eze 14;14 or how daniel knew "Belshazzar" of daniel chapters 5 & 7!

"Belshazzar" was scoffed at, in the early 20th century as a non existant figment of daniels imagination, (just like you cited "Darius the mede")Until cuniform inscriptions mentioned him by name, found in th 1920's see: "ancient near eastern text's" edited by J. Pritchard 1974p313.

You still havent cited any verifiable texts that i can read! Just "antijw" links!

The fact of the matter, is the 1st hand evidence is Overwhelming, any scholar chosing to ignore "First Hand" evidence defies logic and harbours a pre-existing predudice against the evidence! (172.188.167.87 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

Well, no sense arguing with a dumbass broken record that either can't read, refuses to read, or refuses to pay attention to what he's reading. Ooh, ooh, but he used bold letters and Capitalization, so it must be true!66.158.232.37 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

(Translations from Revised Standard Version)

Jeremiah 25:11 - "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years." This is certainly not saying that the period from the sack of Jerusalem will be 70 years. In fact, from the final fall of Assyria in 609 BC to the fall of Babylon 539 BC is exactly seventy years, and fits the prophecy well enough.

Jeremiah 29:10 - "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place." Again, it is not saying that the seventy years will be after the sack. 609, as the beginning of the period of Babylonian domination, seems to work here.

Daniel 9:2 - I'm not going to bother with Daniel, because a) Daniel is explicitly quoting Jeremiah; and b) no secular scholars believe Daniel to be a contemporary source. The detailed discussion of the reign of Antiochus IV, and the lack of knowledge of his death, all on its own, is enough to date it to 165 BC or so.

Zechariah 7:5 - "'Say to all the people of the land and the priests, When you fasted and mourned in the fifth month and in the seventh, for these seventy years, was it for me that you fasted?'" In this case the seventy years are clearly the period when the Temple has been destroyed.

Zechariah 1:12 - "Then the angel of the LORD said, 'O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?" Ditto. Note that it is clear in Zechariah that the seventy years are ending as Zechariah is speaking. Zechariah is dates to the second year of Darius, which is to say 520 BC. 586-520 BC (66 years - goes up to 70 once you get to the completion of the 2nd Temple), clearly is the seventy years in this case.

2 Chronicle 36:21-22 - "...All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfil seventy year. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia..." This seems to be saying what you want to say. But, again, it seems to be based on a misinterpretation of Jeremiah, rather than being an independent reference. Basically, all there is is Jeremiah, which is referring to 609-539 as the time of the domination of Babylon, and is not specifically referring to the destruction of the Temple; and you have Zechariah, which is referring to a different seventy years, the time when there is no Temple (586-516 BC). There is no need for this radical chronological reconstruction. At any rate, I see no need to respond any further until you explain why the voluminous contemporary cuneiform data all supports the conventional dating. Why are there no documents cited for higher years than 2 of Amel-Marduk, 4 of Labashi-Marduk, or 17 of Nabonidus, if one or more of these monarchs actually reigned for longer? From Nabopolassar's accession year onwards, we have dated cuneiform document for years 0-21 of Nabopolassar, 0-43 of Nebuchadrezzar, 0-2 of Amel-Marduk, 0-4 of Neriglissar, 0 of Labashi-Marduk, 0-17 of Nabonidus. And no more. What are the chances of this, unless these are in fact the number of years each of those kings reigned? So, please respond to that, and quit with the straw men about Ptolemy. john k 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And, again, Belshazzar has been known for 80-odd years. Obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there is still no reason to believe in Darius the Mede. Especially since every other source goes straight from Nabonidus to Cyrus, and Daniel's account seems to be based on the misapprehension that the Medes came first and separately from the Persians. Furthermore, the date of Daniel is assumed to be late not only because of the numerous errors about the 6th century, but because of the detailed knowledge of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, followed by the absence of knowledge about Antiochus IV's death. Ezekiel's mention of Daniel is meaningless. "even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD." Ezekiel is putting Daniel alongside Noah, who lived thousands of years before him, and Job, who is generally considered to have been a pre-Hebrew figure. There is no reason to think that the Daniel indicated is the younger contemporary of the author. john k 04:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And claiming Daniel and Chronicles as first hand evidence, while ignoring all the cuneiform evidence, is perverse. Even Jeremiah and Zechariah, which are generally considered to have been written around the times they are supposed to have been written, only have textual histories going back to the 2nd century BC at the earliest (and it is my understanding that the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Jeremiah is substantially different from the Masoretic version preserved in the Bible) john k 04:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this source, cited by the anon above, and mentioned by me as giving good information on the vast multitude of cuneiform evidence that supports the traditional chronology, appears to be not anti-JW polemic, but work by a Jehovah's Witness who, through research of the stuff, has come to see that the traditional Jehovah's Witness chronology is untenable, but still wants to preserve the truth of prophecy and try to use it for calculating purposes. john k 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:66.158.232.37 why do you keep deleting this post! Deleting it is not gonna make you right!

Again on the point of degrees of evidence! the question is of 1st hand; or 2nd-3rd hand!

About your claim, noah, job were dead, so therefore daniel must have been as mentioned at ezekiel 14:14;

I read a lot of physics books; and nearly in all of them, they quote the great physicists in this order!

Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Hawking's! According to your way of thinking; The mention of Hawking's with these 3 physicists infers that Hawking is dead?? Your statement is not valid!

Reading zecheriah's context, it is obvious he is refering to jerusalem, and not a "foreign" nation assyria! On the one hand you say jeremiah, dates to the second or first century, and then you say chronicles is quoting jeremiah! Which is it? You said the biblical-cannon is not a history book, but chronicles is specifically that! Chronicles is post date exile, and even you say it seems correct, but then say it is quoting Jeremiah! When it quotes "it" it refferes to jerusalem, not the temple!

as reading the context of 2 chronicles 36:19-21 states, the 70 years "starts" with the sacking of jerusalem & Carrying off its exiles; and ends with the exiles returning home! (Not the rebuilding the temple)! jeremiah, zecheriah, daniel, ezra and chronicles are all refering to "jerusalem" also! & the "same" 70 year period!

"these nations shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years" [quote]"In fact, from the final fall of Assyria in 609 BC to the fall of Babylon 539 BC is exactly seventy years, and fits the prophecy well enough."

Except for the fact that the "exiles" serving the king of babylon; came home 2 years later; and had nothing to do with assyria's fall! Note the criteria "serve the king of babylon"

About your theory of zecheriah! I'm glad that you assign him first hand status! It is not obvious, (like you theorised) that the 70 years were ending as zecheriah was speaking, the 70 year exile had "already" ended, zecheriahs reference "how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?" is reffering to 2 things;

1) "how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah?" Reffering to the temple rebuilding, that had ground to a halt, because of oppression!

2) "against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?" Reffering to the specific point that "they felt" they had served their punishment already for 70 years, and further oppression was unwarrented! It is unthinkable, that you beleive "all" these sources reffer to "different" periods of 70 years, thats sounds more like the work of a conspiracy theorist to me!

[quote]"Obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there is still no reason to believe in Darius the Mede"

But you used "absence of evidence" as "evidence of (darius the medes) absence! in your earlier posts! Get your head round that 1 :)

Again, you keep saying things like "the vast multitude of cuneiform evidence" & "voluminous contemporary cuneiform data" without reffering to even 1 books volume, encyclopedia or sources (no silly anti jw liknks plz) backing up your claim!

(172.216.217.34 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)).

My edit summaries tell you why your stuff kept getting removed (hint: it involved me reverting my comments that you went about deleting a couple times).

john k, seriously, this dude is just wasting your time (was wasting mine too, until I started ignoring his rants). We both know this stuff quite well, and the dude has been presented with more than abundant material to learn from if he were really interested in getting educated about history. It seems obvious that he is not, so I just want to comment that you're probably wasting your valuable time arguing with this man/wall. But do as you wish, obviously.66.158.232.37 13:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your notes probably get deleted, because of their deregatory content; how can someone be wasting your time, who wasnt even talking to you? I joined this conversation after whatever argument you was having with someone else. (and chose not to get involved with your heated debate) Im discussing dating techniques with someone else, so i dont see what your antijw babble has to do with me, the dating of the exile period, or this whole discussion!

Okay, one last post before I stop responding to this nonsense. First point: I agree that Zechariah is referring to Jerusalem. He is clearly referring to the 70 years being 586-516, since it seems as though the 70 years are still in progress at the time Zechariah is writing in 520 BC. It is Jeremiah who is not referring to Jerusalem. The period of time that people "Serve the King of Babylon" has to end in 539 BC, since there is no king of Babylon after that. Going back 70 years gets you to the fall of Assyria in 609 BC. Thus, the period of time when people "serve the King of Babylon" is the period during which Babylon is the chief Empire in the world. It succeeds Assyria and is succeeded by Persia, and has dominance for 70 years. Neither of these explanations is terribly strained, and both are accepted even by fundamentalist protestants who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. As to me, I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, so even if you could prove to me that all these sources mean that seventy years elapse between the destruction of the Temple and the return from exile, I have no need to accept that this is true, only that the sources in question are wrong - Jeremiah, for instance, was supposedly speaking of future events, so there's no particular need to believe he was correct. The others could all just be following from Jeremiah (as they seem to be, except for Zechariah). The basic fact is this - we know from the cuneiform sources that seventy years did not elapse between Nebuchadrezzar's 18th year and the second year of Cyrus. Only 50 years elapsed. The question then becomes "is there any other way we can interpret the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah and Zechariah?" (the other uses of seventy years are clearly quotes of Jeremiah, and thus don't need to be independently explained). The answer is clearly "yes, there are other ways." The Biblical evidence on its own is ambiguous as to what the seventy years mean, at least in the original sources that discuss seventy years, Jeremiah and Zechariah. Perhaps the JW explanation is the most obvious one, but it is not the only one, and I think that the Jeremiah seventy years, at least, is quite clearly for the period of Babylonian domination in general. Given that all the other evidence contradicts an 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar in 607 BC, we ought to turn to the alternative explanations, since those might actually prove to work. By insisting on the one meaning, all you are doing is impugning the Bible, since we know about as well as we can know anything in ancient history, that Nebuchadrezzar reigned from 605 to 562 BC. Beyond this, if you're going to ignore the massive cuneiform evidence in favor of the conventional chronology simply because the sources citing it are supposedly anti-JW sources, I don't see why I should bother with you. Go read an actual book about the Neo-Babylonian period by a secular scholar, and then come back. A final word on Daniel - I was not saying that Ezekiel's reference of Daniel along with Noah and Job proves that he is somebody much older than Ezekiel. I'm saying that it shows that Ezekiel's reference is not necessarily to the Daniel depicted in the Book of Daniel. Obviously, it remains possible. But unless one is a Biblical inerrantist, there is no particular reason to assume so. john k 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ill leave it here as well! At the end of the day, there are simply 2 sources for dating the "exile" period! 1) Biblical chronology, 2)Greek chronology! I have thoroughly studied the verses dealing with the exile period and know it deals with a 70year exile ending with the return trip home, under Cyrus the great, and a babylonian vassel king!

You have thoroughly studied the Greek texts, and know that these 2 sources contradict one another! Well just have to differ, on which evidence we both accept!

I shouldn't respond again, but this just irks me tremendously. My interlocutor writes: Ill leave it here as well! At the end of the day, there are simply 2 sources for dating the "exile" period! 1) Biblical chronology, 2)Greek chronology! No. Just no. Please read. Do you even know what cuneiform is? There are numerous cuneiform sources on the Neo-Babylonian period, as one would expect. All of those sources support the "Greek" version. Furthermore, even most Biblical inerrantists do not accept that the "Biblical chronology" conflicts with the "Greek chronology." They accept that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah, and the 70 years spoken of by Zechariah, do not refer to a seventy year time period between the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar and the 2nd year of Cyrus. This is because there are only 50 years, and the 50 years is supported not just by Greek dates, but by every single cuneiform source in existence (of which there is a great deal). 25 ( post year 18 years of Nebuchadrezzar)+2 (Amel-Marduk)+4 (Neriglissar)+17 (Nabonidus)+2 (Cyrus)=50. There are multiple cuneiform documents dated to years 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 of Nebuchadrezzar; to years 0,1, and 2 of Amel-Marduk; to years 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Neriglissar; to year 0 of Labashi-Marduk; and to years 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Nabonidus. There are no cuneiform documents which date to year 44 or higher of Nebuchadrezzar, to year 3 or higher of Amel-Marduk, to year 5 or higher of Neriglissar, to year 1 or higher of Labashi-Marduk, or to year 18 or higher of Nabonidus. How likely is it that every year that fits into the conventional chronology would be represented, and no year that does not would be? Is this even slightly plausible? If there were missing years at the latter end, why wouldn't there be any missing years anywhere else? And why do all the chronicle and historical sources support the 21,43,2,4,0,17 as the lengths for the Neo-Babylonian kings, as well? Why do astronomical retrocalculations (of astronomical observations recorded in the cuneiform, not those recorded by Ptolemy) also support the traditional dates? Why does everything support the traditional dates except one particular reading of a couple of Bible verses? Why is it that even most Biblical inerrantists are able to reconcile these Bible verses with the traditional chronology? I really advise reading the PDF document that I've linked to several times, and which you obviously haven't read. It is written by a Jehovah's Witness who wishes to reconcile the prophetic calculations of the Jehovah's Witnesses with the historical record as reconstructed by secular historians. By changing the interpretation of another bit of Biblical year recording, the fellow is able to preserve the entirety of Russell's calculations for the modern period. That you characterize this as anti-JW propaganda shows either that you are exceedingly narrow or that you have not bothered to read it. john k 22:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is just going round in circles. Ive said my peace & i thought youd said yours! cuneiform; isn't it something to do with golf? Your statement about inerrantists contradicts itself! An inerrantists beleives the bible word for word. If they had even read 2chronicles & countless other passages!

They would have read the 70 years "started" with the sacking of jerusalem, lasted 70 years; in which time, the "land" lay desolate, why? because they were in exile!

Why is the point about the land important, because it shows the 70 year period did not end with the building of the second temple, (as you theorised) but ended with their return from exile! How many times must this simple fact recorded umpteen times be stated?

Verses 22&23 of 2chronicles date the order by cyrus for the exiles to return; as does ezra chapters 1 & 2; and dozens of other verses i could find! Ezra 3:1 dates the exact date of return! Second year of Cyrus! Verse 19,- 23 says this exile period is 70 years! Period! No argument! Stated Clearly! Black & White! as do countless other verses!

Putting aside the debate for 1 sec here,

How you could say this 70 year period (in the biblical cannon) refers to anything other than the exile ending in Cyrus year 2! Is just silly!

quote "Everyone except the Jehovah's Witnesses interprets this to mean seventy years from the sack to the completion of the 2nd Temple in 515 or so"

How do you reconcile these accounts with the exile ending in 515? This isnt "patchwork History" it says umpteen times Cyrus year2?

The reason i havent read the links, is because im not interested in any religious zealot trying to tell me what "he or she" thinks these dates mean! Its simple (70--->Cyrus Y2!) it couldnt be any clearer if it jumped out at you & smacked you in the face!

The dates; (as per month) are recorded in the bible cannon! The dates ending "specifically" say 2 things!

1) 70year exile 2) Completion; Cyrus year 2!

I agree 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, noone is arguing this! But even the cuniform documentation is silent on years 1-18 of Nebuchadnezzar! Whos to say it isnt silent in other places as well!

quote "Why does everything support the traditional dates except one particular reading of a couple of Bible verses?" If it were just a couple of bible verses i'd agree, but its not, its quite a lot actually, and they all say the same thing!

What do you mean the cuneiform documentation is silent on years 1-18 of Nebuchadnezzar? Every single year in the Neo-Babylonian period as recorded by the conventional chronology is represented by one cuneiform inscription or another. There are certainly chronicles extant for the first ten years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. What in the world are you talking about? Quickly, in reply to other points, my point about Biblical inerrantists was not that they are right - I am not a Biblical inerrantist, and I am quite certain that the Bible is not factually accurate on a number of points. Personally, I would agree with you that the reference in Chronicles seems to indicate a 70 year period between the destruction of the Temple and the return from Exile. I think that this is due to a mistaken interpretation of Jeremiah, which is cited as the source for this claim, but which is clearly referring to a general period of Babylonian domination. However, my reference to Biblical inerrantists was meant to point out that most of those who would self-identify as Biblical inerrantists (usually fundamentalist Protestants) accept the conventional chronology, and believe that the Biblical account is consistent with it. That is to say - the conventional chronology is not a conspiracy by secularists to prove the Bible wrong. Many devout believers who claim the Bible is inerrant find no contradiction between this and an acceptance of the conventional chronology. Beyond this, my point, which you consistently fail to grasp, is that it simply doesn't matter what either the Bible or classical sources say. There are multitudinous cuneiform records of the Neo-Babylonian period. All of them agree fully with the conventional chronology. That Ptolemy's Canon and Berossus also agree with the conventional chronology merely suggests that they were based on accurate sources - they are in no sense themselves the basis of the conventional chronology. That the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of a number of Bible verses does not agree with the cuneiform sources suggests that either a) the Bible is wrong (I think that the stuff in Chronicles and Daniel are simply wrong, based on incorrect later interpretations of Jeremiah); b) the Bible is being misinterpreted (I think that the materials in Jeremiah and Zechariah are being misinterpreted); or c) a combination of the two (obviously, my position). There are no other options. Either the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about the Bible or the Bible is wrong. But there is simply no possibility that the Jehovah's Witnesses are right about the Bible and the Bible is correct, because the external evidence is simply too strong in favor of the standard chronology. Let me relist the evidence in favor of the conventional chronology, as found in that article from the Herald of Christ's Kingdom (which, as I now understand it, is published by a a Jehovah's Witness-like organization that split from the main society):

1. Babylonian Chronicles survive for years 0-3 and 10-21 of Nabopolassar, and describe his death in year 21. Chronicles survive for years 0-10 of Nebuchadnezzar, 3 of Neriglissar, and 0-17 of Nabonidus.
2. The Uruk King List gives 21 years for Nabopolassar, 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar, and 2 years for Amel-Marduk
3. The Adda-Guppi Stele, by Nabonidus's mother gives 21 years of Nabopolassar, 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years of Amel-Marduk, 4 years of Neriglissar
4. The Hillah Stele by Nabonidus gives 54 years between events described elsewhere as occurring in year 16 of Nabopolassar and events occuring in the accession year of Nabonidus. That is to say, 610 BC-556 BC, which works perfectly.
5. The records of the Egibi family firm gives 38 years from the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 12th year of Nabonidus, and 23 years from the 12th year of Nabonidus to the 1st year of Darius. This works out perfectly in the conventional chronology (582-544 in the first instance, 544-521 in the second).
6. There are 4500 dated commercial tablets in the British Museum from the Neo-Babylonian period. Every year believed to exist in the conventional chronology is attested, and no year not believed to exist. How likely is this? For instance, there are apparently 19 tablets dates to the second year of Amel-Marduk, and 36 to the accession year of Neriglissar. By the conventional chronology, this is the same year (560 BC). It is my understanding that the JW chronology adds about twenty years to the reign of Amel-Marduk. If so, why are there no tablets dates to the 3rd or 4th or 17th year of Amel-Marduk?
7. Dated lunar eclipse recordings from documents LBART 1418,1419,1420,and 1421 give eclipses for 15 and 17 Nabopolassar, 1,12,13,14,15,30,31,32,41 and 42 Nebuchadnezzar, and 1 Nabonidus which all conform to absolute dates exactly when we would expect them to conform based on the conventional chronology. (that is, to 611,609,604,593,592,591,590,575,574,573,564,563,and 555)
8. One of these eclipse documents, LBART 1419, gives us various reign data at 18 year intervals. Thus, 18 years from 17 Nabopolassar (609) to 14 Nebuchadnezzar (591), from 14 Nebuchadnezzar to 32 Nebuchadnezzar (573), from 32 Nebuchadnezzar to 1 Nabonidus (555), from 1 Nabonidus to 2 Cyrus (537), and from 2 Cyrus to 3 Darius (519).
9. VAT 4956 dates 37 Nebuchadnezzar to 568 BC
10. Nabonidus no. 18 describes an eclipse which happens just before Nabonidus's daughter is ordained a priestess, which is known from the Nabonidus Chronicle to have occurred in 2 Nabonidus. Eclipse data shows that this eclipse occurred in 554, exactly when expected
11. The "Dynastic Prophecy" gives 17 years for Nabonidus.

None of this has anything to do with Claudius Ptolemy or Berossus, or with any Greeks at all. And until you make some actual effort to address any of this, instead of repeatedly going back to arguments about the Bible, you simply do not have a point. The article referenced gives sources for all of these documents, and they agree fully with every other source that I have read on the subject. If you want to make your case, you will have to discredit all or most of this information - you can't just rely on interpreations of a couple of Bible verses, or claims that the Bible is more reliable than the ancient Greeks. john k 18:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Been away sorry; But how you can use as your source of information, some religious freek show, On a crusade of some sort is baffling! Plz dont bring "any" religious argument in to this discussion, on the dating techniques of the paragraph title!

Right back to business; The "only" unbroken reference on this subject is the hebrew cannon; this is because they employed skilled copyists & scribes to meticulausly copy their history, because of religious convictions the kingly line was obsessively recorded & copied generation after generation; Not only was the actual wording obsessively copied, but it was copied "letter for letter"(painstakingly)! Dating techniques can work with this papyrus (biblos- little book) paper hence the dead sea scrolls. No such luck with stone tablets. (which is beside the point)

However the nabonidus chronicle is severely fragmented and thus, the text is badly damaged and contains many lacunas. Quite a lot actually, so although tablets verify certain facts (belshazzar) for 1, they are silent on other areas!

Of consequense also is the fact that it was written by a conquering Cyrus, and is thus open to "hes" interpritation, as his unflattering description of Nabonidus; Belshazzar (mentioned only by Daniel)was most definately "Erased" from babylonian records for losing them their kingdom, as was the custom of many nations; Thus opening the possibility, that other missing periods could also have been erased! as "darius the mede" could have been for hes 4par concerning the babylonious religious customs; Also especially in the light of Nabonidu's mental illness, & the fact that his mother was most likely the same! Her testimony is suspect as well! Amel-Marduk, (or Evil-Marduk) could well have been such a pain in the behind!

The nabonidus chronicle being severely fragmrented, although able to descrube certain events, it is silent in large areas as The text is badly damaged and contains many lacunas. As are most tablets! (that is not to say they are incorrect or meaningless, far from it)

But on the 70 exile we have a (First Hand Un-broken source), V's (a Broken Secon-Third hand source)!

Moving on to "eclipse" dating techniques; Have you ever researched this?

You quote the eclipse data many times, this is notouriously tricky, unless there is a specificTotal Eclipse which are very rare and only happen on average every 410 years! You paraphrase ,many eclipses though, and these are partial eclipses, happening Once every year on average (for any given place on earth)

Just to give you an idea! Of how easy it is to get this wrong! Here is a period of 70 years, (Just like ours); you can obviously put any "eclipse - data" where the hell you want! as there are no years with out 1! (The babylonians didnt have newton mechanics, or the fact the earth was copernian in orbit)! In other words, they only knew when the moon & earth alligned! (not moon & specific region)!

Solar Eclipses: 1931 - 1940

1931 Apr 18 Partial 147 0.510 - e Asia, n Canada, Greenland

1931 Sep 12 Partial 114 0.046 - Russia, Alaska

1931 Oct 11 Partial 152 0.899 - s S America, Antarctica

1932 Mar 07 Annular 119 0.928 05m19s Antarctica, Australia, s Indies [Annular: Antarctica, Tasmania]

1932 Aug 31 Total 124 1.026 01m45s N America, Russia, C America, n S America [Total: Canada, U.S., North Atlantic]

1933 Feb 24 Annular 129 0.984 01m32s s S America, Africa, Antarctica [Annular: Chile, Argentina, Congo, Zaire, C.A.R., Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Yemen]

1933 Aug 21 Annular 134 0.980 02m04s ne Africa, c Asia, Indies, Australia [Annular: Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Indon., Australia]

1934 Feb 14 Total 139 1.032 02m52s e Asia, Australia, Alaska [Total: Malaysia, Indonesia, central Pacific]

1934 Aug 10 Annular 144 0.944 06m33s s Africa, Antarctica, [Annular: Angola, Nambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, S Africa]

1935 Jan 05 Partial 111 0.001 - South Pacific

1935 Feb 03 Partial 149 0.738 - N America, C America

1935 Jun 30 Partial 116 0.337 - Russia, Canada, Greenland, n Europe

1935 Jul 30 Partial 154 0.231 - South Atlantic, Antarctica

1935 Dec 25 Annular 121 0.975 01m30s Antarctica, s S America [Annular: Antarctica]

1936 Jun 19 Total 126 1.033 02m31s Asia, e Europe, n Africa [Total: Greece, Turkey, Russia, Japan]

1936 Dec 13 Annular 131 0.935 07m25s Australia, Antarctica, New Zealand [Annular: Australia, New Zealand]

1937 Jun 08 Total 136 1.075 07m04s s N America, C America, nw S America [Total: central Pacific, Peru]

1937 Dec 02 Annular 141 0.918 12m00s e Asia, w N America, e Indies [Annular: central Pacific]

1938 May 29 Total 146 1.055 04m05s s S America, s Africa [Total: South Atlantic]

1938 Nov 21 Partial 151 0.778 - ne Asia, nw N America

1939 Apr 19 Annular 118 0.973 01m49s N America, n Europe, Russia [Annular: Alaska, Canada]

1939 Oct 12 Total 123 1.027 01m32s Antarctica, Australia, s S America, N.Z. [Total: Antarctica]

1940 Apr 07 Annular 128 0.939 07m30s N America, C America, n S America, [Annular: central Pacific, Mexico, U.S>]

1940 Oct 01 Total 133 1.064 05m35s S America, s Africa [Total: Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa]

Solar Eclipses: 1941 - 1950

1941 Mar 27 Annular 138 0.935 07m41s Antarctica, S America, C America [Annular: South Pacific, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil]

1941 Sep 21 Total 143 1.038 03m22s Asia, Indies, Australia, Middle East [Total: Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazkhstan, China]

1942 Mar 16 Partial 148 0.639 - Antarctica

1942 Aug 12 Partial 115 0.056 - Antarctica

1942 Sep 10 Partial 153 0.522 - Canada, Greenland, w Europe, n Africa

1943 Feb 04 Total 120 1.033 02m39s e Asia, w N America [Total: Russia, Japan, Alaska, Canada]

1943 Aug 01 Annular 125 0.941 06m59s Madagascar, Antarctica, Indies, Australia [Annular: s Indian Ocean]

1944 Jan 25 Total 130 1.043 04m09s S America, C America, w Africa [Total: Peru, Brazil, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Mali, Niger]

1944 Jul 20 Annular 135 0.970 03m42s s Asia, e Africa, Indies, Australia [Annular: Somalia, Ethiopia, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnma, Phil.]

1945 Jan 14 Annular 140 0.997 00m15s Madagascar, Antarctica, Australia, N.Z. [Annular: South Africa, Tasmania]

1945 Jul 09 Total 145 1.018 01m15s N America, n Africa, Europe, w Asia [Total: U.S., Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia]

1946 Jan 03 Partial 150 0.553 - s S America, Antarctica

1946 May 30 Partial 117 0.886 - South Pacific

1946 Jun 29 Partial 155 0.180 - n Europe, n N America

1946 Nov 23 Partial 122 0.775 - N America, Carribean, n S America

1947 May 20 Total 127 1.056 05m13s S America, Africa [Total: Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, central Africa]

1947 Nov 12 Annular 132 0.965 03m59s N & S America [Annular: central Pacific, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia Brazil]

1948 May 09 Annular 137 1.000 00m00s Asia, Indies, nw N America [Annular: Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, China, Japan]

1948 Nov 01 Total 142 1.023 01m56s e Africa, central Indian Ocean [Total: Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, Indian Ocean]

1949 Apr 28 Partial 147 0.608 - n Africa, Europe, w Asia, n N America

1949 Oct 21 Partial 152 0.963 - Antarctica, Australia, New Zealand [Annular: Antarctica]

1950 Sep 12 Total 124 1.018 01m14s ne Asia, nw N America [Total: Russia]

Solar Eclipses: 1951 - 1960

1951 Mar 07 Annular 129 0.990 00m59s New Zealand, Pacific, s N. America, nw S. America [Annular: New Zealand, Nicaragua]

1951 Sep 01 Annular 134 0.975 02m36s e N. America, Carribbean, n S. America, w Europe, Africa [Annular: e US, W. Sahara, Mauritania, Mali, Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Angola, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagascar]

1952 Feb 25 Total 139 1.037 03m09s Europe, Africa, Asia [Total: Gabon, C. African Rep., Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Russia]

1952 Aug 20 Annular 144 0.942 06m40s C. America, S. America [Annular: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay]

1953 Feb 14 Partial 149 0.759 - e Asia, Pacific, Alaska

1953 Jul 11 Partial 116 0.201 - Alaska, n Canada, Greenland

1953 Aug 09 Partial 154 0.372 - s Chile, s Argentina, Antarctica

1954 Jan 05 Annular 121 0.972 01m42s s Pacific, New Zealand, Antarctica [Annular: Antarctica]

1954 Jun 30 Total 126 1.036 02m35s c & e US, Canada, Carribbean, n Africa, Europe, w Asia [Total: n US, e Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Afghan., Pak., India]

1954 Dec 25 Annular 131 0.932 07m39s s Africa, Indian Ocean, se Asia, Australia [Annular: Namibia, S. Africa, Indian Ocean, Indonesia]

1955 Jun 20 Total 136 1.078 07m08s e Africa, e Asia, East Indies, n Australia [Total: Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines]

1955 Dec 14 Annular 141 0.918 12m09s c & e Africa, Mid East, Asia, East Indies [Annular: Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, se China]

1956 Jun 08 Total 146 1.058 04m45s New Zealand, Pacific [Total: s Pacific]

1956 Dec 02 Partial 151 0.804 - Europe, n Africa, Mid East, c Asia

1957 Apr 30 Annular 118 0.967 - e Asia, nw N. America [Annular: n Russia]

1957 Oct 23 Total 123 1.022 - s Africa, Antarctica [Total: near Antarctica]

1958 Apr 19 Annular 128 0.941 07m07s Asia, East Indies, Pacific [Annular: Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Japan]

1958 Oct 12 Total 133 1.061 05m11s Australia, New Zealand, Pacific, sw S. America [Total: Pacific, Chile, Argentina]

1959 Apr 08 Annular 138 0.940 07m26s East Indies, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific [Annular: Australia]

1959 Oct 02 Total 143 1.033 03m02s e N. America, Europe, Africa, w Asia [Total: ne US, W. Sahara, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia]

1960 Mar 27 Partial 148 0.705 - Antarctica, s Indian, Australia

1960 Sep 20 Partial 153 0.613 - ne Asia, N. America

Solar Eclipses: 1961 - 1970

1961 Feb 15 Total 120 1.036 02m45s Europe, n Africa, Asia [Total: France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, Ukraine, Russia]

1961 Aug 11 Annular 125 0.938 06m35s Brazil, s Atlantic, s Africa, Antarctica [Annular: Antarctica]

1962 Feb 05 Total 130 1.043 04m08s e Asia, East Indies, Australia, Pacific, w US [Total: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Pacific]

1962 Jul 31 Annular 135 0.972 03m33s ne S. America, sw Europe, Africa [Annular: Venezuela, Guyana, French Guyana, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, D. R. Congo, Tanzania, Madagascar]

1963 Jan 25 Annular 140 0.995 00m25s s S. America, s Africa, Antarctica [Annular: Chile, Argentina, S. Africa, Madagascar]

1963 Jul 20 Total 145 1.022 01m40s ne Asia, N. America, C. America [Total: Japan, n Pacific, Alaska, n Canada, e Canada, Maine]

1964 Jan 14 Partial 150 0.559 - Antarctica

1964 Jun 10 Partial 117 0.754 - Australia, New Zealand

1964 Jul 09 Partial 155 0.322 - n N. America, N. Pole, ne Asia

1964 Dec 04 Partial 122 0.752 - ne Asia, Pacific

1965 May 30 Total 127 1.054 05m15s New Zealand, Pacific, C. America, w S. America [Total: New Zealand, Pacific, Peru]

1965 Nov 23 Annular 132 0.966 04m02s Asia, East Indies, Australia, Pacific [Annular: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea]

1966 May 20 Annular 137 0.999 00m05s Europe, n Africa, Asia [Annular: Guinea, Mali, Algeria, Libya, Greece, Turkey, Russia, China]

1966 Nov 12 Total 142 1.023 01m57s C. America, S. America, s Africa [Total: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil]

1967 May 09 Partial 147 0.719 - s Africa, Antarctica [Total: s Atlantic]

1967 Nov 02 Total 152 1.038 - s Africa, Antarctica [Total: s Atlantic]

1968 Mar 28 Partial 119 0.898 - Antarctica, Pacific

1968 Sep 22 Total 124 1.010 00m40s Europe, ne Africa, c Asia [Total: Russia, Kazakhstan, China]

1969 Mar 18 Annular 129 0.995 00m26s se Asia, East Indies, Australia, w Pacific [Annular: s Indian, Indonesia, Pacific]

1969 Sep 11 Annular 134 0.969 03m11s Americas [Annular: Pacific, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil]

1970 Mar 07 Total 139 1.041 03m28s N. America, C. America, nw S. America [Total: Pacific, Mexico, e US, e Canada]

1970 Aug 31 Annular 144 0.940 06m48s Papua New Guinea, e Australia, New Zealand, Pacific [Annular: Papua New Guinea, Pacific]

Solar Eclipses: 1971 - 1980

1971 Feb 25 Partial 149 0.786 - Europe, nw Africa, w Asia

1971 Jul 22 Partial 116 0.068 - ne Asia, n Alaska

1971 Aug 20 Partial 154 0.507 - e Australia, New Zealand, s Pacific

1972 Jan 16 Annular 121 0.969 01m53s s S. America, Antarctica [Annular: Antarctica]

1972 Jul 10 Total 126 1.038 02m36s ne Asia, N. America, n S. America [Total: ne Russia, Alaska, Canada]

1973 Jan 04 Annular 131 0.930 07m49s S. America, w Africa, Antarctica [Annular: Pacific, Chile, Argentina, Atlantic]

1973 Jun 30 Total 136 1.079 07m04s e S. America, s Europe, Africa, Mid East [Total: Guyana, Suriname, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya]

1973 Dec 24 Annular 141 0.917 12m03s e N. America, S. America, w Europe, w Africa [Annular: Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mauritania, Algeria]

1974 Jun 20 Total 146 1.059 05m09s Madagascar, East Indies, Australia [Total: s Indian Ocean, sw Australia]

1974 Dec 13 Partial 151 0.826 - N. America, n S. America

1975 May 11 Partial 118 0.864 - Greenland, Europe, n Africa, n Asia,

1975 Nov 03 Partial 123 0.959 - s S. America, Antarctica

1976 Apr 29 Annular 128 0.942 06m41s Europe, Africa, Asia [Annular: Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Algeria, Libya, Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, China]

1976 Oct 23 Total 133 1.057 04m46s e Africa, India, E. Indies, Australia, New Zealand [Total: Tanzania, se Australia]

1977 Apr 18 Annular 138 0.945 07m04s Africa, s Asia [Annular: Namibia, Angola, D. R. Congo, Zambia, Tanzania]

1977 Oct 12 Total 143 1.027 02m37s N. America, nw S. America [Total: Pacific, Columbia, Venezuela]

1978 Apr 07 Partial 148 0.788 - s S. America, s Africa, Antarctica

1978 Oct 02 Partial 153 0.690 - Scandinavia, n & e Asia

1979 Feb 26 Total 120 1.039 02m49s N. & C. America, nw Europe [Total: nw US, c Canada, Greenland]

1979 Aug 22 Annular 125 0.933 06m03s s S. America, Antarctica [Annular: Antarctica, s Pacific]

1980 Feb 16 Total 130 1.043 04m08s Africa, s Asia [Total: Angola, D. R. Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, India, Myanmar, China]

1980 Aug 10 Annular 135 0.973 03m23s sw N. America, C. & S. America [Annular: Pacific, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil]

Solar Eclipses: 1981 - 1990

1981 Feb 04 Annular 140 0.994 00m33s Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica, w S. America [Annular: Tasmania, New Zealand, s Pacific]

1981 Jul 31 Total 145 1.026 02m02s e Europe, Asia, Alaska, nw Canada [Total: Kazakhstan, Russia, n Pacific]

1982 Jan 25 Partial 150 0.566 - New Zealand, Antarctica

1982 Jun 21 Partial 117 0.617 - s Atlantic, s Africa

1982 Jul 20 Partial 155 0.464 - ne Asia, n N. America, nw Europe

1982 Dec 15 Partial 122 0.735 - Europe, ne Africa, c Asia

1983 Jun 11 Total 127 1.052 05m11s se Asia, East Indies, Australia [Total: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea]

1983 Dec 04 Annular 132 0.967 04m01s ns S. America, Africa, s Europe [Annular: Gabon, Congo, D. R. Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia]

1984 May 30 Annular 137 0.998 00m11s N. & C. America, Europe, nw Africa [Annular: Mexico, se US, Morocco, Algeria]

1984 Nov 22 Total 142 1.024 02m00s East Indies, Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica [Total: Papua New Guinea, s Pacific]

1985 May 19 Partial 147 0.840 - ne Asia, n N. America

1985 Nov 12 Total 152 1.039 01m59s s S. America, Antarctica [Total: s Pacific, Antarctica]

1986 Apr 09 Partial 119 0.822 - East Indies, Australia, Antarctica

1986 Oct 03 Hybrid 124 1.000 00m00s N. & C. America, n S America [Hybrid: n Atlantic]

1987 Mar 29 Hybrid 129 1.001 00m08s s S. America, Africa, Mid East [Hybrid: Argentina, Gabon, Cameroon, C. A. Rep., Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia]

1987 Sep 23 Annular 134 0.963 03m49s Asia, East Indies, Australia [Annular: Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, China]

1988 Mar 18 Total 139 1.046 03m46s e Asia, East Indies, Australia, Alaska [Total: Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Pacific]

1988 Sep 11 Annular 144 0.938 06m57s e Africa, s Asia, Australia [Annular: Indian Ocean]

1989 Mar 07 Partial 149 0.825 - w N. America

1989 Aug 31 Partial 154 0.633 - s Africa, Antarctica

1990 Jan 26 Annular 121 0.967 02m03s s S. America, Antarctica [Annular: Antarctica]

1990 Jul 22 Total 126 1.039 02m33s n & c Asia, nw N. America [Total: Finland, n Russia, n Pacific]

Solar Eclipses: 1991 - 2000

1991 Jan 15 Annular 131 0.929 07m53s Australia, N.Z., Antarctica, s Pacific [Annular: sw Australia, Tasmania, N.Z., s Pacific]

1991 Jul 11 Total 136 1.080 06m53s e Pacific, N. & S. America [Total: Hawaii, Mexico, C. America, Colombia, Brazil]

1992 Jan 04 Annular 141 0.918 11m41s n Australia, Pacific, w N. America [Annular: c Pacific, s California]

1992 Jun 30 Total 146 1.059 05m21s S. America, s Atlantic, w Africa [Total: Uruguay, s Atlantic]

1992 Dec 24 Partial 151 0.842 - ne Asia, n Pacific, Alaska

1993 May 21 Partial 118 0.735 - w N. America, n Europe, nw Asia

1993 Nov 13 Partial 123 0.928 - s Australia, N.Z., Antarctica, s S. America

1994 May 10 Annular 128 0.943 06m14s e Pacific, N. America, Europe, w Africa [Annular: Pacific, c U.S., e Canada, Morocco]

1994 Nov 03 Total 133 1.054 04m23s S. America, Antarctica, s Atlantic s Africa [Total: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil]

1995 Apr 29 Annular 138 0.950 06m37s s Pacific, C. & S. America, Atlantic [Annular: s Pacific, Equador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil]

1995 Oct 24 Total 143 1.021 02m10s Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, Australia [Total: Iran, India, Thailand, se Asia]

1996 Apr 17 Partial 148 0.879 - N. Zealand, s Pacific Ocean

1996 Oct 12 Partial 153 0.757 - ne N. America, Europe, n Africa

1997 Mar 09 Total 120 1.042 02m50s Asia, Alaska [Total: Mongolia, China, Siberia]

1997 Sep 02 Partial 125 0.898 - Australia, N. Zealand, Antarctica

1998 Feb 26 Total 130 1.044 04m09s N., C. & S. America [Total: Galapagoes, Colombia, Venezuela, Caribbean]

1998 Aug 22 Annular 135 0.973 03m14s Asia, Australia, N. Zealand [Annular: Sumatra, Borneo, Pacific]

1999 Feb 16 Annular 140 0.993 00m40s s Africa, Antarctica, Australia, N. Z. [Annular: s Indian, Australia]

1999 Aug 11 Total 145 1.029 02m23s e N. America, n Africa, Europe, Asia [Total: England, Europe, Middle East, Turkey, India]

2000 Feb 05 Partial 150 0.579 - Antarctica

2000 Jul 01 Partial 117 0.477 - S Pacific Ocean, s S. America

2000 Jul 31 Partial 155 0.603 - n Asia, nw N. America

2000 Dec 25 Partial 122 0.723 - N. & C. America

(172.212.231.135 10:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC))

Firstly, aren't you the pot calling the kettle black with your "religious fanatic" nonsense. Whatever the religious beliefs of the author linked to (I certainly do not agree with them), the fact is that, on the subject of the Neo-Babylonians, everything he says is what mainstream scholarship says. The sources quoted are mainstream sources. You, on the other hand, are motivated by the beliefs of the JW in insisting upon a chronology that no scholars accept. I find it utterly ridiculous that you would try to claim that quoting someone motivated by a religious agenda is off-limits, when you yourself are motivated by a transparently religious agenda. By your standard, I should just be ignoring you. As to the Nabonidus Chronicle, it is far from the only piece of evidence. The eclipse information you provide is useless - yes, there are eclipses every year. But there are not eclipses in any given part of the world every year. Of the ones listed, only a small fraction would have been visible over Babylon. Furthermore, eclipses are also recorded with the month and day, as far as I am aware. That also limits it - you can't just pick any old eclipse, you have to pick one that would be visible in the Middle East and that occurs at the right time of year. Beyond that, you have yet to address the Uruk Kinglist, the Adda-Guppi Stele, the Hilla Stele, the Egibi records, or the 4500 commercial tablets. It should also be noted that it is lunar eclipse records that I mostly mentioned, and you have not addressed any of that, either. At any rate, I'll focus your attention on the Egibi records and the commercial tablets. The former give a chronology which is non-political, has nothing to do with eclipses, and agrees perfectly with the standard chronology. The latter provide tablets dated in every year of the Neo-Babylonian period as agreed upon in the conventional chronology, and provide no data foor any of the additional years that would be needed for the JW chronology to work. john k 16:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

(Ah thats what u think)! Well; Im not religious you fool, just another thing you have wrong! If anything, im tryinna take your religious squabbling out of this historical debat! The reason i only mentioned the nabonidus chronicle is because the thread was so long, and i was just getting going! You however are obviously obsessed; every comment seems nothing to do with this debate, Just another way you MUST prove the JW wrong! Just because i happen to agree on the 70 year exile & the second year of Cyrus is beside the point!

If your so thouroughly familiar with this subject, put the eclipse data up & well go through them! I can guarantee that they can be interperated any way they want! Just like the "Bible Code" guy, thought he had found a hidden bible code; then it was proved you can "Find" any text you want in practically any book!

As for your saying the eclipse's are only "visible over Babylon" (how little you know)!

Could you please tell me how they measured the position of babylon with relation to the rest of the earth or, as to the earth's circumference?, This is needed for accurate eclipse prediction! & Eratosthenes of Cyrene only measured the circumference of the earth in 276 BC

This is a very vauge statement, a partial eclipse covers a great area of the earths surface! There are more than 4 different types, and the babylonians had only basic mathematical tools for predicting these!

Like i said, they had NO knowledge of Newtonian mechanics, or the Copernican view of the solar system, thus any methods they used to predict eclipses, would be very basic indeed; based on the fact that the moon came in-between the eart & sun! & nothing more!

This quote is from a leading expert!

quote;Starting in the fourth century B.C., astronomers in Babylon (as Mesopotamia, roughly present-day Iraq, was known) were able to predict the time and magnitude of lunar eclipses. Solar eclipses are more difficult to predict, and it wasn't until the second century A.D. -- more than 1800 years ago -- that the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy accomplished this feat[/quote]

Furthermore, the source reffers to the Babylonians obsession with "BAD" omens and eclipses, and even used these phenomena, to predict the king's death! Thus any bad omens (such as king's death) were falsely (dated-with) the eclipses by later babylonian-supersticious-historians!

Just do a search (on this page) for an exact place (mentioned in the list), i did it for "america" and practically every year came up!

If you are going to pretend not to be a Jehovah's Witness, fine, but the chronology you support is one only supported by Jehovah's Witnesses. Nobody else, not even other wacko Biblical inerrantists, are willing to go against the extremely well-testified (for the ancient world) dates for the Neo-Babylonian kings on the basis of a few ambiguous lines in the Bible. Your statements about eclipses are pointless - the Babylonians recorded eclipses they observed, not eclipses they predicted, so it doesn't matter whether or not they could predict or calculate eclipses. Absolute dates are derived by retrocalculating when those eclipses could have occurred. As to your claim that they falsified eclipses, I'd like to see some evidence for this. Also, you are talking about solar eclipses, when most of the data I mentioned was for lunar eclipses, which your owns ource indicates the Babylonians could calculate. You have no point whatever, and you still have not addressed, even in passing, the Egibi tablets or the 4500 commercial tablets. john k 19:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Frankly; i dont care what you think i beleive! Do JW's teach "astronomical chronology & advanced physics" now? I dont think so!

My statements about eclipses are far from pointless,The eclipse data i cited is (above & beyond question)! Literally & figuratively!

[quote]the Babylonians recorded eclipses they observed, not eclipses they predicted[quote]

You obviously have no expertise in this area! How could they observe partial eclipses like those cited! If anything it would just look like a slightly overcast day! If they even noticed it at all! Not to mention your eclipse dates were written after the fact- and then predated!

quote "absolute dates are derived by retrocalculating when those eclipses could have occurred"

now where getting somewhere! Note word: "could"

Which my own source indicates "could have calculated from the "4th century BC"", well after the exile period!

Lunar eclipses are even worse! here "only" the 1st 10 years as b4, this time!

Lunar Eclipses: 1931 - 1940

1931 Apr 02 Total 121 1.508 03h29m 01h30m e S America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1931 Sep 26 Total 126 1.325 03h48m 01h25m e Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1932 Mar 22 Partial 131 0.972 03h06m Asia, Australia, N America, w S America

1932 Sep 14 Partial 136 0.980 03h25m e Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1933 Feb 10 Penumbral 103 -1.022 - Asia, Australia, w N America

1933 Mar 12 Penumbral 141 -0.410 - Americas, Europe, Africa, w Asia

1933 Aug 05 Penumbral 108 -0.728 - e S America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1933 Sep 04 Penumbral 146 -0.296 - Americas, Europe, Africa

1934 Jan 30 Partial 113 0.117 01h23m Europe, Africa, Asia, w N America

1934 Jul 26 Partial 118 0.667 02h42m e Asia, Australia, w Americas

1935 Jan 19 Total 123 1.354 03h47m 01h27m Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, w N America

1935 Jul 16 Total 128 1.760 03h35m 01h40m e Australia, Americas, w Europe, Africa

1936 Jan 08 Total 133 1.022 03h23m 00h24m n N America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1936 Jul 04 Partial 138 0.272 01h58m se Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia,

1936 Dec 28 Penumbral 143 -0.150 - Americas, Europe, Africa, w Asia

1937 May 25 Penumbral 110 -0.299 - Australia, Americas, w Africa

1937 Nov 18 Partial 115 0.150 01h23m e Asia, Australia, Americas, w Europe, w Africa

1938 May 14 Total 120 1.101 03h34m 00h51m e Asia, Australia, Americas, w Africa

1938 Nov 07 Total 125 1.358 03h31m 01h22m Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, w Australia

1939 May 03 Total 130 1.182 03h28m 01h03m e Europe, e Africa, Asia, Australia, w N America

1939 Oct 28 Partial 135 0.992 03h24m e Asia, e Australia, Americas, Europe, w Africa

1940 Mar 23 Penumbral 102 -0.874 - Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia

1940 Apr 22 Penumbral 140 -0.089 - Americas, Europe, Africa

1940 Oct 16 Penumbral 145 -0.371 - e Asia, Australia, Americas, w Europe, w Africa

You are now saying the eclipse data is now meaningless, after making such a big deal of it! Im coming to the other points btw, just clearing 1 point up at a time, its easier this way!

You are pointless - again, you ignore the fact that specific dates are recorded for these things, which limit the possible years in which they could occur. Do you really think that you could have discovered the utter uselessness of dating by eclipses which nobody else has ever figured out before? It is not the fact of an eclipse which demonstrates the date. It is the combination of specific eclipse predictions on specific dates, which becomes almost impossible to attribute to any other time. You are once again inaccurate in your claims about the eclipse data we have. While there is some dispute as to whether or not Ptolemy's eclipses were real observed eclipses or retro-calculated ones, cuneiform tablets refer to observations of actual eclipses.

At any rate, this is all worthless. If you are, in fact, not a Jehovah's Witness trying to insert Jehovah's Witnesses dogma into the article then we can simply ignore you completely. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. There is no actual scholarly research which supports your position. I would guess that there is not a single Assyriologist in the world who will support putting the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 607 BC. Until you can provide one, all you are doing is providing original research, and I'm going to ignore you. john k 20:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is far from pointless! Put a "specific" date up as mentioned and well see!

Oh but you cant, you see to do so you would have to either

1) Be physically there! & guess this isnt just a cloudy day!

2) Know the earths circumference! Rotation speed! And your exact geographical location in relation to all this!

as eclipses have certain "exact" time-frames and the earth moves during this frame!

3) Work a "rough" algorythm, & have a rough guesstimate! This was what they did! But there are anywhere between 1-5 per year

4) Drop on a "Total" eclipse so theres no doubt!

So I doubt you will find 1 of your (partial-eclipses) with an exact year-date & location!

If noone-else has noticed this b4, then yes ill take credit for discovering the uselessness of (non-specific[thats non-total,or no exact date & location]) eclipses; only im probably not the first, you just havent listened!

You say there are dates, that cannot be argued with, name one and ill look (completely unbiased) Name such a date ; that i can verify!

How is saying (70 --->Cyrus Y2) is inserting JW dogme! Its there for anyone to see! Its been there 2+thousand years b4 JW's

2nd That's very funny! Your testamony cites JW's as nuts who are mislead, but considers them scholars more worthy than myself to comment on this board!

You quote some religious magazine, "herald" or something.

I quote Actual scholars, celestial dates, Actual hebrew cannon references, babylonian chronicles, and its me whos testamony is worthless! Name 1 eclipse date that supports your account (of the 50 year exile) that i cant find any fault with(shouldnt take long) and i wont say another word!

The link you gave states" However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. " Every paragraph i have written is such a collection!

Sound's like the penny's just dropped, the eclipse dates, could be wrong!

I still have no idea what your argument about eclipses is. Here is how eclipses are used for dating: the Babylonians were big on astrology, so they recorded lots of details about astronomy, among these were observations of eclipses, which were dated. Using modern techniques of astronomical calculation, people today can determine when in the past eclipses, both lunar and solar, occurred. This can be used to test out chronologies by checking the recorded dates of Babylonian eclipses (recorded in regnal years of kings) against the retrocalculations of modern scientists. Said retrocalculations fit with the standard chronology of Egyptian kings. Now, your argument seems to be "but there are so many eclipses each year, how could this possibly be useful for anything?" Your list of eclipses does demonstrate that there are numerous eclipses each year. Personally, my expertise in astronomy and ancient Babylonian inscriptions is insufficient for me to specifically refute you. But I don't need to. Your objection is one that, if it were valid, would mean that nobody anywhere would ever say that eclipses are useful as tools for dating ancient history. The fact that very smart people do, in fact, believe that eclipses are useful as tools for dating ancient history suggests to me that there is a very basic flaw in your logic here. As to my second point - the Jehovah's Witnesses are a fairly sizeable religious group. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses believe certain nonsense about Neo-Babylonian chronology is not original research, and a Jehovah's Witness might claim some sort of religious discrimination if we tried to exclude their beliefs. But seeing as you are (supposedly) not a Jehovah's Witness, there is no need to consider your views at all - they are not only wrong, they are wrong views which there is absolutely no scholarship whatever to support. I am not going to continue to debate with you about this until you can point to one actual Assyriologist who feels that the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period is up in the air. john k 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe you've played his/her/its game this long. Should you choose to continue this eclipse wackiness with him, here's the deal with the eclipses in brief. He is correct in that one lunar eclipse doesn't do squat for you (necessarily; with other eclipse data, it can). The problem he has is that no one dates everything based on one eclipse, things are dated based on buttloads of eclipses. To say that there was an eclipse from around midnight to 4 a.m. on the 13th day of the ninth month doesn't necessarily tell you much (unless there was only one eclipse during the time period in question that it could have been). However, if you know that there was a full eclipse visible from Babylon from 1200-0400 on 9/13, a partial one from 2130-2330 on 1/4, a partial one from 2230 on 3/17 to 0130 on 3/18, a full one starting at 0430 and lasting past sunrise on 11/19, etc., all in the same year, you're quickly going to end up with one and only one year that those eclipses could have possibly happened (any time remotely near the era in question). Further, I don't know where he whipped out that reference about the Neo-Babylonians being unable to predict eclipses, because they did in fact predict eclipses during that time, including ones that weren't visible from Babylon, and which are known to have not been visible from Babylon, and which they actually recorded as not having been observed. That's how you use 'all those bazillions' of lunar eclipses to establish an absolute chronology. Further, there were observations of other astronomical phenomena which can be similarly dated and which also fit in with everything else, such as the positions of the planets. But I personally don't see why you waste time with this person.66.158.232.37 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention explicitly, but descriptions of eclipses aren't limited to one year per tablet either. You can have a description like I mentioned above for one year, a similarly detailed description for the very next year, the same thing for the next year, etc., all on one tablet. You can also have independent tablets, where you know the gap between them (one tablet can end in, say, the second year of Nabonidus, and another one can start during the seventh year of Nabonidus), and all these tablets would have to fit together into the same chronology. Fortunately, they do, uniquely.66.158.232.37 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the eclipses. This is about what I expected, but wasn't sure I had sufficient command of it to say for certain. At any rate, I am done arguing over this, especially since our anon friend seems to only be interested in debating on the talk page, rather than actually doing anything to the article. Definitely no more. john k 04:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Heck, you could have just whipped an explanation straight out of your butt and been ahead of where our buddy there is.66.158.232.37 04:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just whipping a load of babble out your but isnt gonna prove your point!

You say "if this eclipse was here and that eclipse was there," proves your point, without even giving reference to an actual eclipse, just proves you pulled that out your backside!

If you knew anything about astrophysics, mathematics, and advanced physics, you would know it would have been impossible to predict the exact eclipses mentioned with the conventional knowledge of the time! But you dont so shushhhh!

Like you say, saying there was an eclipse means squat!

If the cannon said!

"There was a transit of venus, then 12 years from this transit there was a "total" eclipse on the 2nd day of the 4th month! and on this day; the 2nd day of the 4th month; coincided with the 4th year of king "such & such's reign" then we can work with that!

Saying; "On the 15th Day of the second month of the 13th year of King "such & such" reign" ther was a partial eclipse means nothing at all! Its utterly pointless! But you already know this!

But since you have no reference to your own source material, as i have "repeatedly", asked you to put forward; & reffer to any such dating description, then all you can do is quote meaningless eclipses to support your weak argument"!

As for saying, get an "assyrianist" to support this; there are 2 types of science and only one sits in the middle

1)Exact Science's

Mathematics

Astrophysics

Physics

Atomic Physics

Relativity

2) Approximate Science's

Archeology

Climatology

Astrology

Atomic Dating

& in the middle Quantum Mechanics! Exact as its predictions are the most accurate of any human theory, Approx, because of the uncertainty inherent in the theory!

Saying that an approx science, (Archeology[specifically]Assyriologist) Outway the testamony of Mathematics & Astrophysics is quite silly!

I was saying that you need to show me an Assyriologist who believes that the conventional chronology is wrong to show that what you are doing is not original research. Your claim with regards to astrophysics and mathematics is merely that they do not rule out your chronology, not that they rule out the traditional chronology. As such, they are completely irrelevant. john k 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

user:66.158.232.37 Thank you for incorrectly clarifying the eclipse problem! I forgot that your resume of expertise included "weeks (maybe months) of research"!

Wow that long, makes me wonder why i wasted so much time at on my education!

Dang, and your illiteracy had us all fooled too.66.158.232.37 22:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My English, is about as good as your science & history. & just like your science & historic research! Completely irelevant to this discussion!

In conclusion: Accurate eclipse retrocalculations, post date Eratosthenes, as 2PIR is required!

Claudius Ptolemy's Eclipse data is thus a combination of 1)Babylonian records 2)Retrocalculations! Carried out in the second century A.D! Ptolemy relied on Hipparchus of 300 years earlier!

1)could not have been accurate!, As they couldnt view all eclipses, didnt know their own geographical location(in relation to the earth), didnt know other solar-system dimensions (worked out later by Claudius Ptolemy) ! Also Claudius Ptolemy's astrodata only covered events visual to hes region!

2) Post date the cannon data to the second century! 700+years after the fact!

In sumation! Claudius Ptolemy's cannon is based on other sources & retrocalculations! As the following quote also shows, even the best mathematicians make mistakes [quote]We shall discuss below in more detail the accusations which have been made against Ptolemy, but this illustrates clearly the grounds for these accusations since Ptolemy had to have an error of 28 hours in his observation of the equinox to produce this error, and even given the accuracy that could be expected with ancient instruments and methods, it is essentially unbelievable that he could have made an error of this magnitude. A good discussion of this strange error is contained in the excellent article [19]. [/quote]http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html

Picture?

Are there any carved historical depictions of Nebuchadrezzar that could be used in his article?--StAkAr Karnak 01:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of (not that that's some kind of definitive statement or anything). There is at least one of Nabonidus, but that's it as far as I know.

Picture from cameo now in Berlin museum is at www.specialtyinterests.net/nebuchadnezzar_cuneis.JPG with the gushum(cuneiform)inscription.Let us call him his name:Nabukudurri(instead of wrong Nebuchadrezzar or Nebuchadnezzar). Do not call an area Judea and Israel in times when these words were unknown-in Nabukudurri's time. The Jewish bible distorts facts and need not be mentioned in relation to this great patriot king and a wise ruler. user:samqharo@posta.ge 29 August 2005

I'm going to suggest that we ignore samqharo's comments in their entirety. john k 18:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting picture, though it looks different than traditional depictions I've seen. What is its origin, and what have scholars said about it?--StAkAr Karnak 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with john k.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Champagne

Sorry, I edited this page without consulting you. Under "Legacy" I submitted that a bottle of champagne consisting of the equal amount of 20 bottles of champagne (15liter) is called a Nebuchadnezzar. The list is as follows: Quart: 20 cl; Half bottle: 37,5 cl; Bottle: 75 cl; Magnum: two bottles (1,5 litres); Jeroboam: 4 bottles (3 litres); Methuselah: 8 bottles (6 litres); Salmanasar: 12 bottles (9 litres); Balthazar: 16 bottles (12 litres); Nebuchadnezzar: 20 bottles (15 litres). It's utterly of know importance, but anyway...

You don't need to consult anybody to make a change like that. The change fits.

Mental illness of...

what mental illness today would we call a person who acts like an animal? from available recording, is that probably what this king could have been suffering from?--x1987x 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that the account of the King's madness is found only in the Book of Daniel, which was written some 400 years after Nebuchadrezzar's death and contains numerous historical errors (most notably, Darius the Mede), there is no reason to think that Nebuchadrezzar was suffering from any kind of mental illness. john k 14:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Lycanthopy is the illness your looking for! & Daniel is not the only source!

J.E.Goldingay quotes a cuniform text as reffering to chastisement by god, illness, humiliation,losing understanding, being like an ox, & being rained on by marduk! Specifically reffering to nebuchadnezzar!

The fact that, nabonidus, a possible relation was also bonkers (more cuniform texts); shows there could have been family history! The illness was possibly quite real!

I thought the cuneiform text that suggested madness was only about Nabonidus. Beyond this, Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar, although he may have married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. john k 15:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No there are 2 references, 1 specifically to nebuchadnessar, the relationship i mentioned is speculative as there is uncertainty in this area!

Let's ignore the fact that Goldingay was/is an 'impartial' reverend. Here are three links to the story you speak of, apparently called "The Ludlul Bêl Nimeqi," although more widely known as "The Babylonian Job":

http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1700ludlul.html

http://www.earth-history.com/Babylon/ludlul-bel.htm

First off, note the date of composition, however incorrect it may possibly be (I doubt that it would be off so much that it is actually from the Neo-Babylonian era or even more recent, but of course someone who wants to believe whatever they want will believe whatever they want). Also note that it is more like the story of Job than the story of Nebuchadrezzar. But most important of all, note that the story has nothing at all to do with Nebuchadrezzar, let alone making a specific reference to Nebuchadrezzar as was claimed.66.158.232.37 02:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)