Two simple (stupid) questions about 607..

by bohm 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  Im researching the societys position on 607, and so far i got two questions i havent been able to find the answer to. It is about the following scripture:

  In the third year of the kingship of Je?hoi′a?kim the king of Judah, Neb?u?chad?nez′zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. 2 In time Jehovah gave into his hand Je?hoi′a?kim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the [true] God, so that he brought them to the land of Shi′nar to the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to the treasure-house of his god.
  
  3 Then the king said to Ash′pe?naz his chief court official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the nobles, 4 children in whom there was no defect at all, but good in appearance and having insight into all wisdom and being acquainted with knowledge, and having discernment of what is known, in whom also there was ability to stand in the palace of the king; and to teach them the writing and the tongue of the Chal?de′ans. 5 Furthermore, to them the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king.
  
  6 Now there happened to be among them some of the sons of Judah, Daniel, Han?a?ni′ah, Mish′a?el and Az?a?ri′ah. 7 And to them the principal court official went assigning names. So he assigned to Daniel [the name of] Bel?te?shaz′zar; and to Han?a?ni′ah, Sha′drach; and to Mish′a?el, Me′shach; and to Az?a?ri′ah, A?bed′ne?go. (daniel 1:1-7)

  1) Why is it so important that Daniel was not taken captive by nebuchanezzar in king Jehoiakims 3 year (corresponding to nebuchadnezzars 1 year) that they are willing to bend scripture? (daniel 1:1-2)

  2) The only real argument i have found for the societys position is that daniel 1:5 says daniel had to be with the king for 3 years before he could 'stand before him'. We later learn he interpret dreams in king nebuchanezzars 2 year. (daniel 2:1). This is used to argue that daniel somehow used a strange system where he dated FROM jerusalems destruction. Personally, i think this is a pretty weak point, and i imediately think that perhaps neb pulled in daniel to interpret the dream before he had planned to (ie the 3 years had elapsed), however, i would like to get your point of view on this particular argument.

  Thanks to anyone who wants to bite!
• 

  Ultimate Reality

  I agree. The argument that Daniel and the other Hebrews were totally unknown to the King during their 3 year education does not match with the fact that court official was in fear of the King if he found out that the 3 Hebrews were not eating of the King's delicacies. The King must have 'checked up' on the boys during their education and during year 2 Daniel gave the interpretation.

  If we really do follow the scriptures at their word, their was a deportation in 605 B.C.E. (using 'secular' chronology) under Nebuchadrezzar's first year as King and that is when Daniel was brought to Babylon. Otherwise, Daniel would be saying things he did not mean. If this 'second year' was after the destruction of the temple why didn't Daniel say so or why did he not say it was in the King's 20th year?

  Here is an interesting chart (not that I endorse the whole site):

  http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Timelines/690-570%20BC.htm
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Why?' questions. I like 'Why?' questions. Does this help trace the 'reasoning' back to source?

  ZWT, May 15, 1896, p.105-6 (The whole article is an interesting read)

  But did not Messrs. Totten, Dimbleby and Usher pursue this same safe plan, and make use of the inspired chronology of the Bible as far as it will go,--down to the first year of Cyrus?

  No, they did not. They admit that the first year of Cyrus was the end of the "seventy years desolation of the land"; and that that date is well established as A.D. 536; but instead of following the Bible line of chronology back of that, and making the uncertain dates of secular history conform to the positive statements of the Bible, they reverse the matter, and attempt to make the Bible record agree with the secular dates, admitted to be quite obscure and uncertain. For instance, they adopt the uncertain secular date for the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign; and then referring to Dan. 1:1, they thus fix the date of Jehoiakim's reign and alter other matters to suit.* Then again, they apply the "seventy years" as years of captivity and begin them in the third year of Jehoiakim; whereas the Scriptures unequivocally declare, repeatedly, that those were years of "desolation of the land," "without an inhabitant." (Jer. 25:11,12; 29:10; 2 Chron. 36:21; Dan. 9:2.) In this manner the remainder of the reign of Jehoiakim and all of the reign of Zedekiah (18 years) are reckoned in as part of the "seventy," whereas Scripturally they were previous and, therefore, additional years.+

  ---

  *We, on the contrary, by this passage fix the date of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, from the Bible date of Jehoiakim's reign.

  +Thus they lost eighteen years more.--See MILLENNIAL DAWN, VOL. II., pp. 50,51.
• 

  bohm

  ANNOMALY: Good stuff... here is a teaser quote to those who have not read the article: "They believe, with us, that the 6,000 years of permitted sin are to be followed by the 1,000 years of Christ's reign of righteousness. But whereas the true Bible chronology shows that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873 (the very year in which the world-wide depression began), their erroneous chronology would show the beginning of the seventh millennium to be over one hundredyears in the future.". It is not strange Russell can write with such certainty. After all, it is GODS CHRONOLOGY as he write.

  Still, this must be a slow day: I still dont get it... What part of their chronology fails if one assume Daniel was send in exile in jehoiakims 3rd year like Daniel 1:1-2 say?. Im not even trying to refute the societys position, just understand why on earth this particular butchering of history/scripture is required!
• 

  mkr32208

  The problem is that the entire book of daniel was written hundreds of years after the period it claims to report on and the writer is trying to make things match up as best they can...
• 

  bohm

  MKR, yes, yes! i am aware of this, but i still want to understand the societys position.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hey bohm, what also raised a smile for me was Russell's comments on astronomy and how it can't really be used to corroborate dates.

  Still, this must be a slow day: I still dont get it... What part of their chronology fails if one assume Daniel was send in exile in jehoiakims 3rd year like Daniel 1:1-2 say?. Im not even trying to refute the societys position, just understand why on earth this particular butchering of history/scripture is required!

  I looks as though it's as you said and it comes down to the apparent discrepancies between Dan. 1:1, 5 and 2:1 and other texts. Josephus also says Jehoiakim's vassalage began in his 8th year.

  Have you seen the Edgar brothers' Great Pyramid Passages yet? It goes into more detail from p. 29 onward. In particular, note p. 35-7.
• 

  Alwayshere

  WTS also says King Neb. 1st year as King is 624. The Bible at 2Kings 25:8-9 and also at Jeremiah 52:12-13 show it was in Neb. 19th year as King when Jerusalem was desolated. You can not get 607 using 624. History says 605 for Neb. 605-18=587. WTS can not prove anything thats why we are labeled Apostates.
• 

  Alwayshere

  One reason its important for Daniel NOT TO BE TAKEN IN THE 3RD YEAR OF jEHOIAKIM IS BECAUSE IN vOL. 1 OF iNSIGHT ON THE sCRIPTURES, PAGE 576, THEY SAY DANIEL WAS TAKEN IN 617.
• 

  bohm

  AlwaysHere: Thanks!. So is this the reason?:

  Nebs first year is 624. Jehoiakims 3rd year is nebs 1st, so if one read daniel 1:1-2 directly, he would have been taken to jerusalem about 624. Which would add 7 years to his life according to society chronology? Is those 7 years the problem? (daniel get to old)