Foreigner

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC, as per secular history and 3 years later, 602BC, he rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, and in 587BC Jerusalem was destroyed. So, either you're trying to justify 50 years to 70 years, or your calculations fall short within those 70 years. So, what would be the reason to use 609BC if you want to be precise? 608BC, then, you end up in 538BC, 1 year after the fall of Babylon. So, what would be the reason to use another speculative view about Isaiah’s Prophecy, if this claim can’t be added, either? Don’t you think, you are attempting to make things fit, just as the Watchtower is being defamed for? Just to put things into perspective to those that get confused. AlanF, Ann O'Maly, and JWinsider, claims from 609BC-587BC=22 years. Where does the 19 years in SCRIPTURE, the SAME 3-year difference being argued about for the WT chronology, fall, then? SPECULATION IS ALL YOU HAVE!!!!!

Here lies "Alanf'" and JWinsider" argument. That 538BC shouldn't be overlooked. The Jews received the edict in early 538BC and returned and arrived in late 538BC, thus fulfilling the scriptual70 years in 539BC as indicated by ALANF's friend and colleague Jeffro, not 538BC. Normal people should be able to add or subtract. 538BC+70=608BC. 1 year more than what the Watchtower has been claiming for a century. 539BC+70=609BC, NOT 608BC. 2 years more than what the Watchtower has been claiming for a century now. This whole time, COJ proved nothing since the GENTILE TIMES would have started with the death of King Josiah in 609BC. So, 1911 or 1914 when Jesus sat on the throne can still be applied, within a 3-year difference. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE RAYMOND FRANZ. That he jumped the gun, on sheer speculation.

Then why single out one person, when others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of calling themselves within the same level of expertise and portray that same intellectual perception. I believe, the POSTING on the MAIN PAGE of this WEBSITE, shows what you are attempting to single out one person with your statement. So, either you are deliberately being selective, and hate this person, which is against all that Jesus taught? or you are defending those that reject the Watchtower chronology, Which is another view Jesus taught against. Nothing personal, just an honest observation. You can’t imply, you have no problem with the WT chronology, and then reject the WT chronology and allow your views of rejection be POSTED in AD1914, as though, it is something, factual. Many scholars agree, those that present an objection, are obligated to show SOLID proof of their objection. Thus far, the objections have been met with speculation, where’s the intellectual mind? You are confident that 607BC in NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, and have cited with, secular chronology, of 587BC, yet you give a vague response that it COULD VERY WELL BE? When we can be confident with this CLAIM TO BE UTTERLY FALSE. If 607BC is farfetched, then 609BC is FAR WORSE, no, it "could very well be" need to be applied.

607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported? By JW Insider, April 12, 2016 in Questions The implication, of being intelligent has made its way to the forefront. Could there possibly be a reason why I picked you out of a crowd? Or can we agree, suggesting intelligence is a futile endeavor, so, that, everyone can drop the sarcasm about being intelligent, when they show the contrary? By that logic, then we could agree that 609BC would be worse of a probability than 607BC.

Jeremiah 25:1-11New International Version (NIV) Seventy Years of Captivity 25 The word came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the (1)fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. 2 So Jeremiah the prophet said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem: 3 For twenty-three years—from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah until this very day—the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened. 4 And though the Lord has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention. 5 They said, “Turn now, each of you, from your evil ways and your evil practices, and you can stay in the land the Lord gave to you and your ancestors for ever and ever. 6 Do not follow other gods to serve and worship them; do not arouse my anger with what your hands have made. Then I will not harm you.” 7 “But you did not listen to me,” declares the Lord, “and you have aroused my anger with what your hands have made, and you have brought harm to yourselves.” 8 Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: “Because you have not listened to my words, 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,” declares the Lord, “and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy[a] them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. 10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. AlanF/Jeffro: · 609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering AssyriaÂ’s final capital, Harran. Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin. · 608 King Jehoiakim begins his 11-year rule in Jerusalem. 605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule 604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes vassal King to Babylon. Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.* (Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given) * The ‘DanielÂ’ character is presented as a representative of the captives as a literary device. · 598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar sieges Jerusalem. · 597 (March) Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne. (Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne) Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!! 1.      608BC-4=604BC Does this mean scripture has it wrong, since King Nebuchadnezzar accession year was in 605BC, or is that just rhetorical to mean 605/4BC with the official regnal year being 604BC, and the figure above is at best confusing. Jeremiah prophesized 23 years from the 13th year of King Josiah. Secular Chronology places this king at 641/0BC. Jeremiah started his prophecy from 627/6BC for 23 years. 627-23=604BC When, was King Nebuchadnezzar made King by secular reckoning JWinsider? IsnÂ’t it a failure to suggest the 70-year servitude started in 609BC when Nebuchadnezzar wasnÂ’t king yet? How do you reconcile the same argument that faces the WT Chronology? Are we to understand, Captivity and Servitude donÂ’t mean the same thing? Jeremiah 29:10-14New International Version (NIV) 10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. IsnÂ’t all this mudding the waters to confuse people into believing something that is obviously NOT TRUE? When was Prince Nebuchadnezzar made KING? Therefore, wouldnÂ’t it be conceivable, those who boast about their intelligence, are simply playing to an empty room? JTR!  “IF” 607BC is NOT acceptable, and *impossible* because people use SECULAR HISTORY to show Prince Nebuchadnezzar was NOT KING in 607BC? And this is the sole reason why the Watchtower has been criticized and defamed? Then, when, did 609BC become acceptable to all the skeptics? https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-9/  Dates for the 70 years The first deportation of Jews to Babylon (which included Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego) began the 70 years of captivity. Bible commentaries identify this as occurring between 607 and 605 B.C. Various sources say the date of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem occurred between 539 and 536 B.C  Since we are referring to BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and NOT secular chronology, then what kind of intelligence is being referred to here, when 607BC is flatly “denied” but 609BC is *perfectly* acceptable.  WHEN DID PRINCE NEBUCHADNEZZAR BECOME KING? BY SECULAR CHRONOLOGY************* Â

Playing the Jesus card! He did. What did it get him other than killed by God’s own creation…Then the Jewish nation was still under the influence of the GENTILES as their benefactors to their evil deeds by rejecting the Messiah and getting him killed to heighten their own personal religious agenda, away from God’s spoken words.

No confusion. But it does appear we are looking at the same thing differently. While you disagree with my view, I will disagree with yours. fair enough? We all wish for many things. I wish I wasn't compared to a person I don't know. That in itself is the embodiment of superfluous. I also wish other peoples opinions weren't "forced" upon me, as this has become at least, 4 times. I wish my above statement wasn't true, but here we have evidence of number 5. I will extend the same courtesy when better evidence is presented without a misappropriation of historical facts and scripture by personal opinions. Once again, thank you.

The word salad is the only one aggressively being, served. Therefore, the *FALSE* premise becomes that VAT4956 covers 37 years of Nebuchadnezzar ‘s reign with NO MENTION of a catastrophic event being mentioned, that scripture describes. Therefore, as far as this tablet is concerned, Jerusalem was destroyed in 605BC, 3 years after King Jeroiakim, upset Nebuchadnezzar, and then after being upset, even more, he had God’s House Destroyed in 587BC. If other tablets have those types of observations? Then what does that tell us about this record keeping tablet, that can be speculated in, both ways? This tablet doesn’t have the value that ex-witnesses (faders) wish it to have. A conjecture is only relevant to those that oppose the WT chronology by misleading hypothesis. I believe the rest of your post has become irrelevant, and contradictory. Perhaps you feel better debating someone else since your tone has become "ad hominem" as you indicated on the last page, and I have no need for it. Thank you for your opinion.

I would have to say, you and I are looking at the same historical "evidence" with an open mind, NOT a closed one that is determined to support inaccurate knowledge of history and scripture.

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at. Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture. If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesnÂ’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn. I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.  Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter. Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.  Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter. I will give you a personal view.  Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts. T.G. Pinches L.W. King C.J. Gadd S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!! D.J. Wiseman A.K. Grayson. And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way. If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER. Babylon Controls Jehoiakim 1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets. At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof JonssonÂ’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, letÂ’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem. Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer. Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring KingdomÂ’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of NebuchadnezzarÂ’s official reign 605BC, by GodÂ’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by GodÂ’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19 So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.   Â

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date? This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted. Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture. Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology. This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside? If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle. Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint. This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar. This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know. Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT JudahÂ’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King NebuchadnezzarÂ’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didnÂ’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias. If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does. http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. It’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

While our faith is based on GOD’s word? Secular chronology doesn’t impede our faith in what is written in scripture. Scripture relates to a story without years. However, when contrasting scripture to secular history, we can add or dismiss certain dates. The old standard of the WT chronology was based on a difficult scheme that included Ptolemy's canon. Going up from 520BC to 539BC then down to 537BC, given the likelihood things were not hastened as some commentaries wish for it to be. While 539BC can be a “fixed” dated? It by no means completes a historical fact. While 587BC might seem like a *fixed* date, it does not tell a factual story of “the destruction of Jerusalem” as certain scholars claim. At best, any honest scholar would venture to say, Jerusalem was *Besieged* in 589BC, with the END RESULT being the tearing down of the outer wall and burning of God’s Temple, and surrounding homes. Jeremiah chapters 21-39. A far cry from (DESTROY)-(DEVASTATION)-(DESOLATION) that doesn’t agree with what God describes as the destruction, devastation, and desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, earlier by the mercenaries God sent to DESTROY Judah, which Jerusalem was part of because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done. (i.e. not submit to God’s YOKE) by aligning themselves with Eygpt. 2 Kings 24:1-4. So, those 70 years everyone is debating are included. The only thing left to ask, why 607BC instead of 605BC. The answer is there for those that wish to obtain, it. Some, Facts and with faith, the answer is there. The Watchtower’s opinion in this Chronology has it right!!!!

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in GodÂ’s INSPIRED word, scripture. Then we can agree that the Babylonian Chronicles tell a story, just NOT a COMPLETE story. It's all in the interpretation, then!

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

LOL! More of the same by this personal, sentiment. Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes? Or is this an attempt to hide the truth? Isaiah 29:15, 2 Corinthians 4:2  This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity. However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made? How about the Babylonian Chronicle, Tablets. Were they carbon dated?

LOL!! more of the same. Such as the claim VAT4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587BC instead of 588BC Are you a published scholar to make this claim? It seems it has taken 6 pages to admit, everyone is entitled to their opinion published or not. Scholars do that every day without so much as scrutiny from outside sources, which the WT has had to endure.

Actually, you must have misunderstood. Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1st edition of the book. Your own link shows where the author was going with the idea. I understand the author’s adjustment, however, that doesn’t explain why you and ANN have assumed this interpretation of events no better than any other interpretation given out there. That’s the point, that has been alluded by the remarks given. Everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply without having it scrutinized by interpretations that have "faults" of their own by secular reckoning. Even "Grayson" readjusted some mistakes in his earlier work. BM21901 etc have unreadable areas. The Babylonian Chronicles don't tell a "complete" story. Was the scribe with Nebuchadnezzar when writing those events? or were they dictated after as a matter of history? NONE of these hypotheticals have a 100% certainty.

So, does Darren Thompson. But thank you for agreeing with everyone is entitled to their opinion. The theory still stands as to why this person came to this conclusion since he obviously wasn’t looking at VAT4956 as it is normally seen. Yet, finds the 19 years accurate for 586BC to 605BC.

This person doesn’t seem to imply VAT4956 to be substantial to the calculations, given. VAT 4956 seems to be a concern to other aspects, not driven by your assertion. But, the latter portion of your comment, becomes a matter of opinion, does it not? I could very well include COJ, Doug Mason, Max Hatton, etc. as poor resources to cite, wouldn't it?

I still don’t see the relevance of your claim. This person started his creative date at 3969BC, 57 years from the WT. 35 years from the infamous Ussher starting point of 4004BC. The board claim of the “Exodus” Date: 1659BC- 1301BC seems to agree with secular chronology The only difference I see with that opinion? The starting date of 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar’s reign minus the 19 years to 586 BC. The majority of secular chronology “accepts” this time frame does it not? Or are you now suggesting the year’s 605/4BC and 5867/6 are incorrect? Then, the methodology being used of inductive and deductive has no massive exclusion to the timetable.

Now you’re confusing me. What would the revision of VAT 4956 from 568/7 to 364 have to do with the timeline in question? That wasn’t adjusted.

Scholar JW What do you think of this: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006 (2nd Ed.) p.35 King Nebuchadnezzar (actually known as Nebuchadnezzar II by historians) of Babylon and the events that surround him will lay the foundation for the discussion in this chapter. King Nebuchadnezzar's rise to power is quite amazing. Nabopolasser, his father, had successfully conquered Assyria and obliterated Nineveh the Assyrian capital. Shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar had successfully beaten back Egypt as a general* in his father's military and controlled Syria and Phoenicia after that victory. Consequently Judah became a vassal nation to Babylon at that time. Three years later, King Jehoiakim of Judah aligned himself with Egypt because Egypt had been able to rise up against Nebuchadnezzar during this period. Nebuchadnezzar then besieged Jerusalem in that year to put down Jehoiakim's rebellion (he later defeated Egypt for a second time). Nebuchadnezzar captured King Jehoiakim and took him to Babylon. This marked the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. Jehoiakim remained the king of Judah for eight more years living in Babylon until his death. Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, then reigned for three months as king of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar then took Jehoiachin prisoner and sent him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king of Judah and Zedekiah reigned for eleven more years. Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar was captured while Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of his reign (see Jeremiah 52:12). It is important to understand what historians believe to be true about history at the time of Babylonian Captivity before we analyze what the Bible has to say. Most Biblical chronologists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in the year 586 B.C. This time is partially based on tracing the reigns of the kings of the Persian and Babylonian empires as outlined in Ptolemy's book Almagest. The Almagest was written to describe a mathematical model for predicting the motion of heavenly bodies. This book documented eclipses that occurred during the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings that Ptolemy used to demonstrate his model. Therefore Almagest was not so much a history book as it was a book on mathematics. Also, Ptolemy was not regarded as an expert on history, if anything he was known as a reputable mathematician and astronomer. The Almagest presents the reigns of the Babylonian and Persian kings without assuming any co-regencies (that is to say, none of the kings' reigns overlapped each other), as follows: