I found this great site that discusses this issue and aligns the years very close to the Biblical alignment. With GRAPHICS! Check it out!
Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1
by ithinkisee 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JCanon
Here's another discussion of the JW problem with this period.
http://www.aomin.org/1914chron.html Very good. This is not an isolated issue it would seem.
JC
-
JCanon
There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer too captives in the early period of his reign for the records only indicate this happened in his seventy or eight year of his reign.
Scholar: There is some "evidence" that Nebuchadnezzar took captives from Judah in his accession year per the Babylonian chronicle which states...
In the 'accession year Nebuchadrezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Sebat marched unopposed through the Hatti-land; in the month of Sebat he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon. In the month of Nisan he took the hands of Bel and the son of Bel and celebrated the akitu (New Year) festival. ll. 12-14
"Hatti-territory" or "Hatti-land" is Palestine. Of note, Nebuchadnezzar's deportations always take place near the very end of the year, I suppose that was the convenient time to return to Babylon for the New Year's festival. So he did invade Palestine in his accession year and he did take tribute. This is the opportune time for deporting the young children to Babylon to learn Babylonian customs and language. Since there is evidence that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine in his accessino year, year 3 of Jehoiakim which records the deportation of Daniel, you have a confirmation of circumstance here.
Lost Battle with Necho, year 4 of Nebuchadnezzar. If Jehoiakim was a vassal, say late in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar or formally beginning with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, then three full years of vassalship which could have gone a few months into the 4th year would cover years 4-7 of Jehoiakim. The Babylonian chronicle records the lost battle with Necho in his 4th year which would have been the 7th year of Jehoikim. Thus the general state of things, the challenge of pharoah in Palestine at this time, might have been related to Jehoiakim rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar around his 7th year which would be three years a vassalship.
Interesting. But nothing in secular history contradicts the Bible having Daniel deported in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, in fact, it is supported by the Babylonian chronicle which records his getting tribute from them. This fits the circumstances of the deportatin of Daniel that year.
JC
-
scholar
JCanon
As I said there is absolutely no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah in his accession year according to the Bible and the chronicles and Josephus. Nor is their any evidence for such deportation in his first year of rule for the Babylonian Chronicle simply states that he took booty and tribute to Babylon nothing about captives from Judah.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
As I said there is absolutely no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah in his accession year according to the Bible and the chronicles and Josephus. Nor is their any evidence for such deportation in his first year of rule for the Babylonian Chronicle simply states that he took booty and tribute to Babylon nothing about captives from Judah.
Booty can and usually did include taking human captives. Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary states that 'booty' means "captives or cattle or objects of value taken in war". Numbers 31:11 (NWT) says "And they went taking all the spoil and all the booty (Strong's 04455) in the way of humans and domestic animals." The same word is translated "those already taken" at Isaiah 49:24,25, referring to exiles taken to Babylon. Therefore it is completely valid that the booty taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year included human captives.
Thank you for raising this important point that indicates that the Babylonian Chronicle agrees that captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Sometimes it's hard to tell which side you're actually on.
-
scholar
Jeffro
I repeat there is no biblical, historical or secular evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in either his accession or first year. The booty can certainly apply to humans but the text usually specifies that is the case but such information is not specified in the instant of Jeremiah 25:1. Jeremiah does however refer to the taking of captives only in the 7th, 18th and 23 rd year of Nebuchadnezzer nit his first or acc. year. The Chronicles do not describe the booty or that any captives came from Judah.
scholar JW
-
JCanon
Hello Scholar, I agree...
As I said there is absolutely no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah in his accession year according to the Bible and the chronicles and Josephus. Nor is their any evidence for such deportation in his first year of rule for the Babylonian Chronicle simply states that he took booty and tribute to Babylon nothing about captives from Judah.
..this is a technicality and it is true. However, taking some children to learn the language and ways of the chaldeans from a vassal state might not have been considered taking "captives." My focal point, therefore, would be that there is a record that Nebuchadnezzar did subject Judah beginning his accession year. Not mentioning taking captives specifically does not mean he didn't ask for some children for the purposes of learning the language for later interaction with Judah.
However, we know that by the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar when he had his first dream, Daniel and his three companions had not yet been before Nebuchadnezzar and they were presented to him after three years when they became well-known to him. The edit to destroy the wise men of Babylon which included the not-yet-seen Daniel was something Daniel heard about. After they were presented they were the most prominent of all the wise men and so would have been asked to interpret the dream right up front. This means, however, that Daniel was already present at Babylon by the second year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Again, though, historically, The Bible matches the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar with the attack on Necho. There is that one-year discrepancy but that battle is dated early in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar who later confronted Necho but lost the battle in his 4th year.
Jehoiakim was appointed by Pharoah Necho so perhaps he rebelled after Nebuchadnezzar lost that battle against him and his army was weakened. The 3-year vassalship from his accession year through the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar works out with you do a direct comparison.
Would you care to comment on whether you think Nebuchadnezzar taking "booty" wouldn't indicate the beginning of a vassalship? I would think so. That's still a little bit more in the direction that Daniel was deported in the accession year or the following year.
JC
-
toreador
JC,
You made a comment about hell earlier. Do you believe God will torture peoples souls forever and ever?
Toreador
-
JCanon
JC,
You made a comment about hell earlier. Do you believe God will torture peoples souls forever and ever?
No. Permanent death is ultimately the great loss. Adam who lost eternal life was allowed to live out close to the whole day (1000 years) with no problems.
On the other hand, death has little sting if you come back, right? If someone on death row gets exucuted for crimes he committed and Benny Hinn comes and resurrects him back to life after a few days, the State and a lot of other people will be upset! Why? Because he wasn't killed? No. Because it's not about death itself, but deprivation of a long life.
In the Bible the "torment" of the grave is spoken of as a buring fire but this "torment" really is about being cut off from eternal life, never to come back. The torment forever and ever in the lake of fire, is thus a psychological torment of the state of non-existence.
On specific "terms" though, "hell" is not the "lake of fire". Hell or Hades is just the common grave which will be empied at the time of the second resurrection when all, both the righteous and unrightous are brought back. Thus those returning to death, the "second death" in the lake of fire, will feel "torment" because they will see everybody and the wonderful life given to the righteous and what they gave up for a short life of sin and greed. Partly because they know the full truth and what they lose before they die is part of the torment.
That's my position on the topic, at least.
JC
-
Jeffro
However, we know that by the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar when he had his first dream, Daniel and his three companions had not yet been before Nebuchadnezzar and they were presented to him after three years when they became well-known to him. The edit to destroy the wise men of Babylon which included the not-yet-seen Daniel was something Daniel heard about. After they were presented they were the most prominent of all the wise men and so would have been asked to interpret the dream right up front. This means, however, that Daniel was already present at Babylon by the second year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Using the accession-year system, taking children in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (although technically they were taken before his actual accession on his return to Babylon) until a point toward the end of his 2nd year (third year including accession) would be three years. If the dream was shortly after Daniel had been presented to him, there is no problem here.
Of course the NWT says "kingship" at Daniel 2:1 rather than "reign", so if 'scholar' is right, maybe it was his kingship relative to some important event; perhaps his niece went up a dress-size or something.