re:daniel book

by logic 7 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • logic
    logic

    A CLOSER LOOK AT THE BOOK:

    PAY ATTENTION TO DANIEL’S PROPHECY

    On page 31 par 2 the writer gives a short account of Prince Nebuchadnezzar’s account in 625 B.C. of some of his victories ;

    2

    In 625 B.C.E. , Egyptian Pharaoh Necho made a last-ditch effort to block Babylonian expansion southward. To that end, he led his army to Carchemish, located on the banks of the upper Euphrates River. The battle of Carchemish, as it came to be called, was a decisive, historic event. The Babylonian army, led by Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar , inflicted a devastating blow on Pharaoh Necho’s forces. (Jeremiah 46:2) Riding on the momentum of his victory, Nebuchadnezzar swept over Syria and Palestine and, for all practical purposes, put an end to Egyptian domination in this region. It was only the death of his father, Nabopolassar, that brought a temporary halt to his campaign.

    Notice that in

    625 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar is a prince only.

    Now the writer says in the following chapter 3 that Nebuchadnezzar is crowned king.

    3

    The next year , Nebuchadnezzar— now enthroned as king of Babylon—once again turned his attention to his military campaigns in Syria and Palestine. It was during this period that he came to Jerusalem for the first time. The Bible reports: "In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him."—2 Kings 24:1.

    Now the next year which would be

    624 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar is now king .

    Also on pg 63 par 2 writer again says

    Nebuchadnezza r became king in 624 B.C.

    According to this writer

    Nebuchadnezzar became king in 624 B.C.

    Now on page pg 32 par 4; this writer says that he was not king from

    628-618 B.C.

    ( 4

    The expression "for three years" is of special interest to us, for the opening words of Daniel read: "In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it." (Daniel 1:1) In the third year of the complete kingship of Jehoiakim, who reigned from 628 to 618 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar was not yet "the king of Babylon " but was the crown prince. In 620 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute. But after about three years, Jehoiakim revolted. Thus, it was in 618 B.C.E. , or during the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim as a vassal of Babylon, that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem a second time, to punish the rebellious Jehoiakim.)

    According to this writer

    Nebuchadnezzar became king in 624 then was not king between 628-618 B.C. Then became king again in 618 B.C .

    Now on pg 32 par 5 the writer says that

    Jehoiachim surrendered in 617 B.C. in the following two paragraphs tells of the taking sacred utensils.

    ( 5

    The outcome of this siege was that "in time Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the true God." (Daniel 1:2) Jehoiakim probably died, either by assassination or in a revolt, during the early stages of the siege. (Jeremiah 22:18, 19) In 618 B.C.E., his 18-year-old son, Jehoiachin, succeeded him as king. But Jehoiachin’s rule lasted only three months and ten days, and he surrendered in 617 B.C.E.—Compare 2 Kings 24:10-15.)

    Then in paragraph 8 the writer tells of the taking of Daniel as prisoner back to Babylon;

    ( 8

    Who were chosen? We are told: "There happened to be among them some of the sons of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah." (Daniel 1:6) This sheds some light on the otherwise obscure background of Daniel and his companions. For example, we note that they were "sons of Judah," the kingly tribe. Whether they were from the royal line or not, it is reasonable to think that they were at least from families of some importance and influence. Besides being of sound mind and body, they had insight, wisdom, knowledge, and discernment—all when they were at an age young enough to be called "children," perhaps in their early teens. Daniel and his companions must have been outstanding—the elite—among the youths in Jerusalem. )

    Notice all this took place in

    617 B.C.

    Now on pg 46 par 2 the writer infers that Nebucharnezzar became king effectively in 607 B.C. And in his second year he had the famous dream which was later interpreted by Daniel.

    What this writer is trying to say is that Nebucharnezzar did not become king of the world until 607 B.C. and that daniel would have dicipher the dream 2 years later which would have been 606-605 B.C. Even though daniel was captured in 617 B.C.

    It appears that there are than more than one writer of this book who have access to information that differs with each other . Or only one writer who is completly confused. Or this is done on purpose to confused the issue. Or the writer is trying to give us some clue about the true chonology. As you can see from all the information above if daniel was captured in 617 B.C. he would been in Babylon 12 years at the time he interpreted the dream, which of course would have been impossible, as the bible says the most he would have been there is three years which is when he completed his training .pg 8 par 11 .

    11 This would not be easy. King Nebuchadnezzar was a zealous devotee of Marduk, the chief deity of Babylon. The king’s demands were at times totally unacceptable to a worshiper of Jehovah. (For example, see Daniel 3:1-7.) Yet, Daniel and his companions had Jehovah’s unfailing guidance. During their three years of training, they were blessed by God with "knowledge and insight in all writing and wisdom." In addition, Daniel was given thewhe ability to understand the meaning of visions and dreams. Later when the king made an examination of these four young men, he found them to be "ten times better than all the magic-practicing priests and the conjurers that were in all his royal realm."—Daniel 1:17, 20.

    Furthermore the writer has established that nebuchadnezzar became king in 624 B.C.

    That means that his second year would have been 622 B.C. which means that daniel was not taken in 617 B. C. but in 624 B. C.

    So this writer or writers have said the following:

    Nebuchadnezzar became king in 624. B.C.

    That Daniel interpreted the dream in 622 B.C.

    That Nebuchadnezzar was not king between 628-618 B.C.

    That he became king in 618 B.C.

    That he took Daniel in 617 B.C.

    That Daniel interpreted the dream in 615 B.C.

    That Nebuchadnezzar became king in 607 B.C.

    That Daniel interpreted the dream in 605 B.C.

    In summary Nebuchadnezzar became king in 624, 618, 607 B.C.

    IS SOMEONE VERY CONFUSED ?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Nice try Logic, welcome to the forum.

    In the third year of the complete kingship of Jehoiakim, who reigned from 628 to 618 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar was not yet "the king of Babylon " but was the crown prince.

    Break that sentence down and it says: Nebuchadnezzar was not yet the king of Babylon in the third year of the complete kingship
    of Jehoiakim- which was 625. (3 years after 628) The other information is just confusing to make them look smarter. That statement
    is not inconsistent with their assumption that Nebuchadnezzar was enthroned in 624.

    Now on pg 46 par 2 the writer infers that Nebucharnezzar became king effectively in 607 B.C. And in his second year he had the famous dream which was later interpreted by Daniel.

    No, they say Nebuchadnezzar "had effectively became world ruler in 607 BCE." That means he went from National ruler already
    established to seizing world rulership in that year. This fits their doctrine. Not a mistake.

    They do a jumble of history to make it fit their doctrine, but if you stick to their timetable, it seems to fit. Daniel could interpret a dream
    at anytime they wanted to make it fit, as long as it's after they put him in Babylon- so nothing to dispute.

  • logic
    logic

    Thankyou (on the way out). Read that point several times did not pick up on it. It is typical of the literature of the WT , you have to be very observant, jump page to page chapter to chapter then scratch you head untill you are bald and you may finally get what doesnt make sense to start with.

  • Abandoned
    Abandoned

    Welcome to the forum. I just love your name. Now we can officially say that logic has waved "bye bye" to the watchtower.... HA HA HA!

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    Now we can officially say that logic has waved "bye bye" to the watchtower

    LOL, there's no more Logic in the WTS.

    you have to be very observant

    At first, I thought your posts were dead on. I had to examine the book carefully. It reminded me
    that they heap dates on you to make you think they know what they are saying, and are difficult to
    dispute. I think it's Carl Olaf Jonnson that wrote "APOCALYPSE REEXAMINED." It's very deep and
    hard to understand, but it proves the nonsense of 607 BCE.

    Again, welcome

  • Pahpa
    Pahpa

    The Watchtower has to change the entire chronological dating because of its perculiar insistence that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 607 BCE. Nearly all historians date his rule from 605 - 562 BCE. Only the Watchtower stands alone against the tide of facts.

    As has been noted by a number of scholars, the "70 years of desolation" spoken of in Jeremiah applies not to Jerusalem alone but to the other nations surrounding Judah as well. (Jeremiah 25:9 - 11, 15) Babylon started its invasions of the "other nations" well before its destruction of Jerusalem. (586 BCE) So, it would seem logical that the 70 years would have been inclusive of all these events.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    But how anyone can misunderstand this sentence,

    In the third year of the complete kingship of Jehoiakim, who reigned from 628 to 618 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar was not yet "the king of Babylon " but was the crown prince.

    and make it mean he was not king for the entire period, is beyond my comprehension. Before one tries to make a scandal, one might try to understand what one is reading, and understand what commas are for. How he can have understood this sentence as saying Nebu was not king from 628 thru 618 I just don't get.

  • logic
    logic

    OLD HIPPIE, "ON THE WAY OUT" ALREADY POINTED THAT OUT WHICH ON MY SECOND POST I THANKED HIM FOR. BUT YOU KNOW THAT THE SOCIETY WROTE THAT CONVULUTED BUNCH OF CRAP SO NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT THE REAL TRUTH THAT THESE DATES ARE MEANINGLESS ANYWAY. FOR YOU INFO I ASKED SEVERAL JWS TO CLEARIFY THIS FOR ME AND THEY COULDNT FIGURE IT OUT EITHER. MUST MAKE YOU SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR HUH......

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit