Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.216.217.34 (talk) at 10:10, 25 September 2005 (→Date of siege of Jerusalem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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_and_stories/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)[reply]



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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 


         "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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]



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))[reply]


(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]



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

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 :)

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! Does the mention of Hawking with these 3 physicists infer that Hawking is dead?? Your statement is not valid!

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 09:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

Picture?

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nebuchadnezzar_II&oldid=23983988"