I've got a question for Scholar. Since you imply that the Watchtower Society has established its 607 B.C.E. date by following the scriptures more closely than those of us who accept the testimony of secular historians concerning the date of Jerusalem's destruction, why is it that the Society rejects the clearly stated words found in Dan. 1:1, 2-6 and 2:1 and those who believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. accept them?
The Watchtower Society maintains that Daniel was not really taken prisoner "in the third year of Jehoiakim" as Daniel himself wrote ( Dan. 1:1, 2-6 ), but in Jehoiakim's third year, "as tributary king to Babylon." ( Insight, Vol. 1, pg. 576. ) To support their teaching that Daniel was not really taken prisoner "in the third year of Jehoiakim," as Daniel said that he was, the Society says that Daniel also did not really mean what he wrote when he said that he was in Babylon, "in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." ( Dan. 2:1 ) They say what Daniel really meant was that he was in Babylon in the 21st year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, as it is reckoned everywhere else in scripture. They say that in this instance, and in this instance only, Daniel was "dating from Jerusalem's overthrow in 607 BCE." ( Insight, Vol. 1, pg. 576 )
So, according to the Watchtower Society, "the third year of Jehoiakim" does not really mean "the third year of Jehoiakim," and "the second year of Nebuchadnezzar" does not really mean "the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." These seem like strange teachings for an organization which claims to have set their 607 B.C.E. date by following the scriptures more closely than the rest of us.
By the way, for those who don't know the answer to the question I have here asked Scholar, I'll tell you why the Watchtower Society rejects and manipulates the scriptures in this way. If the Society admits that Daniel and others were really taken as captives from Jerusalem to Babylon "in the third year of Jehoiakim," as Daniel said that they were, and if it admits that Daniel really was in Babylon "in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar," as Daniel said that he was, then its teaching that the "seventy years" of "devastations of Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:2) did not begin to run until the time of Judah's total desolation completely falls apart. For the facts of history, and Daniel's own written words in these two separate passages of his book, clearly tell us that Babylon began subjecting all of its neighboring nations, including Judah, to a long series of "devastations" and "desolations" more than twenty years before it destroyed Jerusalem and totally desolated the land of Judah.
Once this fact becomes clear, a fact which the Society has sought to obscure by telling us that Daniel did not really mean what he wrote in these two passages of his book, it becomes clear that the "seventy years" did not begin at the time of Judah's total desolation and end when the Jews once again inhabited their land. The truth of when the "seventy years" began and when they ended then also becomes clear. The fact that Daniel and many others were taken as captives from Jerusalem to Babylon nearly twenty years before Jerusalem's destruction helps us to clearly see that the "seventy years" were a period of time during which God permitted Babylon to subjugate, devastate and desolate its neighboring nations, a period of time which began when Babylon first began to do so and ended when it was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. History shows that this seventy year period of time ran from 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E.
And, once we understand with the help of these two passages from Daniel when the "seventy years" actually ran, we will no longer accept the Society's contention that the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies can be used to date the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. And if the Society cannot use the Bible's "seventy years" prophecies to convince people that Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E. it cannot use that date to "prove" to them that Christ returned invisibly in 1914. And if the Society cannot "prove" that Christ returned in 1914 it has no basis for saying that he then appointed them over all his belongings, or that he ever appointed them over anything at all.
So again I'll ask Scholar, if the Watchtower Society follows the scriptures more closely than those of us who accept 587/6 B.C.E. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, why is it that we can accept the clearly stated words found in Dan. 1:1, 2-6 and 2:1 and the Society cannot?
Edited by - aChristian on 16 January 2003 2:2:46
Edited by - aChristian on 16 January 2003 2:12:13