Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thirdwitness

  The previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the Bible about the 40 year desolation of Egypt.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

  But before it was locked down Norm brought up a lot of points. I would just like to take this one point for starters to show that the Bible does not support the things he wrote about the 2nd year of Neb and the 3 years that Daniel was in training in Babylon.

  O ne argument used in an unsuccessful attempt to disprove 607, is the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses chronology makes the prophet Daniel too old to be realistic.
  Daniel's Answer to the King, by Briton Rivière

  At the start of his book Daniel tells us, “Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it... the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in whom there was no defect at all”. Daniel is among these ones. The King takes them so he can have them “stand in the palace of the king”, but will first “teach them the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

  Presumably, the Hebrew children did not speak the Chaldean language, or know what the King wanted them to do in his palace. They were to be trained. 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 .”

  So they would be trained for “three years” before being allowed before the King. “And at the end of the days that the king had said to bring them in [that is, the three years], the principal court official also proceeded to bring them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king began to speak with them, and out of them all no one was found like Daniel” and his companions. – Daniel chapter 1 Daniel chapter 1

  We can see there were clearly “three years” of training before Daniel went before the King. So what is the problem? The issue lies in the next chapter of Daniel, which starts by saying, “And in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar , Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams”, a dream which Daniel interpreted.

  Now, if Daniel was in the court of Nebuchadnezzar in the “second year” of his Kingship to interpret the King's dream, then according to Jehovah's Witnesses chronology, Daniel would be in Babylon in 624 BCE. This means he must have been 101 years old when he served in the court of Darius. This is highly unlikely.

  Does that make the 607 chronology unlikely? No, because that is not what Jehovah's Witnesses teach. As we have already seen, the Bible says Daniel was under training for “three years” before he went before the King. So, then, why does Daniel says “in the second year” of Nebuchadnezzar?

  As we mentioned earlier, Daniel is speaking from the perspective of the Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. That is why he spoke of Jehoiakim's third year of Babylonian Kingship. Similarly, Daniel is also talking about Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingship over the Jews. This was the “second year” of Nebuchadnezzar being direct King over the Jewish people. Yes, it was the second year after the destruction of Jerusalem when the last Jewish King was removed from his throne.

  This must be correct, for the claim of the apostates is preposterous. Daniel 2:13 Daniel 2:13 states, “And the order itself went out, and the wise men were about to be killed; and they looked for Daniel and his companions, for them to be killed.” Why was Daniel known as one of Babylon's “wise men”? Was he not a “child” who had only been in the city for a year and a few months, a boy who was still learning the Chaldean language? Did the account not say that he and his friends were “children”? ( Daniel 1:17 ) Yes! Then why do they suddenly become “wise men” and Daniel an “able-bodied man”? — Daniel 2:25

  Furthermore, after Daniel successfully interpreted the King's dream, “the king made Daniel someone great, and many big gifts he gave to him, and he made him the ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon and the chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon... Daniel was in the court of the king.”

  So the apostates would argue that Daniel, as one of the “children” still learning the local language, had only been in the city several months before he was regarded as, not a child, but as an able-bodied man and one of the wise men of Babylon.

  Also, he became ruler over the entire City, and all of this happened before Daniel had even been brought in before the King for the first time at the end of his three-year basic training. Can we really take such an idea seriously?

  On the other hand, according to 607-based Biblical chronology, Daniel was taken into exile in 617 BCE, “in the seventh year” of King Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingship, the year Jeremiah says the first exiles were taken. ( Jeremiah 52:28 Jeremiah 52:28 ) Jeremiah does not mention any earlier exiles, so Daniel could not have been in Babylon in the second year, for that is too early. This 607 interpretation also gives Daniel more than enough time to grow out of childhood and become known as an “able-bodied man” and a well-known wise-man.

  It also means Daniel's was not unrealistically old when he died. He probably lived from around 630 BCE to 535 BCE, making him under the age of 100 while he worked for King Darius. Such is entirely possible for a man living under the good conditions of the Royal court, and filled with Jehovah's spirit. As one brother says, “the argument that Daniel would have been too old has no merit whatsoever.”

  Admittedly, Daniel certainly was very old when he died. That is probably why his book ends with the Angel telling him thus: “And as for you yourself, go toward the end; and you will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.” – Daniel 12:13 Daniel 12:13

  Something doesn’t add up

  If that wasn't proof enough that Daniel could not have interpreted the King's dream in his 2nd year of Kingship, consider the following dates which prove that Daniel definitely had not yet completed his training in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship. If we believe the secular chronology, this is what we find:

  Aug/Sep 605 Neb ascends throne

  Feb 604 Daniel exiled, training begins

  April 604 First regnal year begins

  April 603 > April 602 second year of Neb

  Feb 601 Daniel's third year of training ends

  Daniel interprets the dream in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year. Even if Daniel interpreted the dream on the very last day of Neb's 2nd year around April 602, there is still 9 or 10 months before Daniel's 3 years end in Jan/Feb 601. Thus Daniel's 3 years of training in essence becomes 2 years of training or even more than likely even less than 2 years since it is unlikely that he just happened to interpret the dream on the last day of Neb's 2nd year. The 3 years were a full 3 years — not any less. The Bible says, “for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king”.

  One brother versed in Hebrew points out how a later verse in Daniel says “And at the end of ten days” and it uses the same Hebrew word as it does when describing the end of Daniel's three years. He tells us the word is, “‘lemiktzat’ for describing the end in time period of something. Interestingly, this word is derived from word ‘ketz’ which means end to something or someone. To claim that three years are not actually three years is like to claim ten days are not actually ten days.”

  So yet again, the secular chronology of apostates, Bible-correcting historians, and Christendom, clashes with the Bible. —For issues relating to Ezekiel's mentions of Daniel, see Appendix L

  Note: In August, secular history records Neb returning home to be crowned king in Babylon. He could not have taken exiles with him at this time, nor did he have enough time between to travel from Carchemish to Jerusalem then back to and Babylon. He returned to Syria/Palestine in Jan/Feb 604 and this would have been the earliest possible date that Daniel could have been taken.

  Further problems

  The narrative itself shows that Daniel could not have already become known to the King in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year of Kingship. Remember, the 587-based interpretation insists that Daniel has already been made ruler of the district, and head of all the wise men of Babylon, before the end of his training and before he has been brought in before the King for the first time, and while he is still a teenager. The book of Daniel is supposed to be in chronological order, but according to this theory, events in chapter 2 happened during events in chapter 1 (the 607 interpretation does not have this inconsistency).

  So skipping backwards to chapter 1, let's see what the King's reaction was when Daniel was brought in before the King after the completion of his training (remember that the King already knows him, has already met him, has already appointed him head of all the wise men, and Daniel is the district ruler):

  “...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. ... And at the end of the days that the king had said to bring them in, the principal court official also proceeded to bring them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king began to speak with them, and out of them all no one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah ; and they continued to stand before the king. And as regards every matter of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired about from them, he even got to find them ten times better than all the magic-practicing priests and the conjurers that were in all his royal realm.” — Daniel chapter 1

  Does that sound like the end of three years of training, and being presented before the King for the first time? Or does it sound like the King talking to his chief of the district, and head of all the Wise men? If you choose the latter, then the chronological order is broken, the narrative makes no sense, and both the situation and the Bible looks absurd. –See Appendix N for another way some try to explain away this problem

  Conclusion

  When Daniel said the “second year” of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, it is abundantly clear he meant Kingship over the Jews, otherwise the sequence of events make no sense. It is the 2nd year since the destruction of Jerusalem. It is the 2nd year since there was no king sitting on Jehovah’s throne at Jerusalem. It was the 2nd year that Nebuchadnezzar assumed that position over God's people. It is his 2nd year as world ruler, in fulfilment of the 70-year prophecy.

  • Daniel completed 3 years of training before seeing the King.
  • Daniel interpreted the dream in the King's 2nd year of kingship over the Jews as world ruler.
  • Claiming otherwise makes Daniel chapter 2 look ridiculous...
  • ...and means the dates of his training do not add up.
  • Daniel remained under 100 years of age while serving Darius.

  Next page Previous page Contents Printer friendly
• 

  VM44

  I will have to read everything before I would attempt to make any comments.

  However, I did find norm's original posting from almost 5 years ago that he had reposted in the thread that was closed and which contains the statements thirdwitness is answering.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/10674/128362/post.ashx#128362

  Perhaps some will find it useful to have this link.

  --VM44
• 

  cyberguy

  Here’s a question I posed to a high official at WT some time ago. I received no reply of course. I believe you’ll need to reconcile this one:

  In Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46 par. 2, the passage in Dan. 2:1, the "second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar," is explained to mean not that actual 2nd year of his reign, but the 2nd year of his reign as world ruler, 606/605 B.C.E., or 2 years after destroying Jerusalem and its temple in 605 B.C.C.. Is this correct?

  There seams to be a technical problem here, because two different people in Nebuchadnezzar's ruling cabinet, both having the same office of oversight, but are in office at the same! In Daniel 2:14-15, Arioch is mentioned as being the "chief to the king's bodyguard" (see Insight, Vol. 1, p. 163, Arioch #2). However, at Jer. 39:9-11, 13; 40:1-2,10, 43:6, 52:14-15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30, Nebuzaradan is also said to be Nebuchadnezzar's "chief of the bodyguard." He is mentioned as the one, who directed the Babylonian operation of destroying the city of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. (see Insight Vol. 2., p. 482, Nebuzaradan). Furthermore, and here's the key point, 5 years later, which is long past the 606/605 B.C.E. date, Jer. 52:30 states "Nebuzaradan, as the chief of he bodyguard," took other Jews into exile, apparently those who had fled to surrounding territories.

  If WT chronology is correct for Dan 2:1, then just who was "chief of the bodyguard" at that time? Obviously, this is an important point, because this would call into question whether or not Nebuchadnezzar is being identified as world ruler after destroying Jerusalem, rather than in his actual 2nd or 3rd year of reign (i.e., assuming an ascension-method of reckoning).

  ________________________________________

  A reply from Carl Jonsson:

  Dear xxx,

  I think you have made an important observation here! I have checked the original texts as well as a number of commentaries and dictionaries, and it is obvious that the title of Nebuzaradan, "commander of the guards (rab tabbachim)" is the same as the one used of Arioch at Daniel 2:14. The title there is written in Aramaic, so it is a little different (rab tabbachayya), but it cannot be questioned that it is the very same title. It is also an interesting fact that the name and title of Nebuzaradan has been found on a cuneiform tablet, a Neo-Babylonian administrative document from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, where the Akkadian title may be transliterated as rab nuhatimmu, which has the same meaning as the Hebrew title.

  So this is clearly another evidence against the Society's redating of Daniel 2:1 to the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Thank you fro sharing this observation with me!

  Carl Olof Jonsson
• 

  ozziepost

  The previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the Bible about the 40 year desolation of Egypt.

  This is not true. It was locked because of posters failing to comply with Posting Guidlenes.

  I must admit there was some provocation as they were seeing a sincerely operated and helpful discussion board peppered with posts and their own questions remaining unanswered.

  The thread has now been unlocked. No doubt you will want to respond to the questions raised.
• 

  Hellrider

  Actually, the jws could be right, because that would explain why the lions didn`t eat Daniel. If he was like...120 years old (or whatever), not even the hungriest kitty in the world would bother trying to chew down that old, dried-out, wrinkled-up fart. They`d just walk around him, like in the picture. Come kitty-kitty, kitty-kittttttttty
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless, all of your 'arguments' have been thoroughly refuted in various venues, in particular in Carl Jonsson's The Gentile Times Reconsidered. All of your arguments are easily refuted by reference to the Bible only.

  At this point, given your dishonest failure to deal with your opponents' arguments except by ignoring them or dismissing them without evidence, there is no point in replying further to your post. However, if you honestly deal with the important facts discussed in my thread "Why the Watchtower Society Interprets Genesis Non-Literally" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118096/1.ashx ), you might get some response to your post here.

  AlanF
• 

  Jeffro

  thirdwitness again pretends that he has a strong case in the Watchtower Society's bastardization of the facts with regard to Daniel.

  The Society contends that Daniel's first meeting with Nebuchadnezzar was 3 years after training, and that events of chapter 2 had to have come later. But what does the bible actually say? If the events of Daniel 1:20 truly predated chapter 2 (as the Society alleges), then Nebuchadnezzar would already have known that Daniel was "ten times better" than all of the other wise men, so by the time of the events of Daniel 2:2, Daniel would have been the foremost person that Nebuchadnezzar would have called to interpret his dream. However the account in chapter 2 does not suggest that Nebuchadnezzar even knew Daniel at all at the time. When the word was sent out to kill all of the wise men, it was "they" - that is people other than Nebuchadnezzar - who went looking for Daniel, which is consistent with Daniel 1:17, as those involved in instructing Daniel would have been aware of his wisdom. A logical analysis of the two chapters therefore indicates Daniel 1:18-20 refers to either the same events, or later events than those of Daniel chapter 2. In contrast, Daniel 1:18-19 does not require that Nebuchadnezzar had not yet met Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach or Abednego, as "they" who were brought in before the king after the 3 years were not only Daniel and his companions, but all those who were sent for training (Daniel 1:3-5).

  Add to this the fact that there are two different chiefs of the bodyguard when Daniel is taken (Arioch - Daniel 2:14), and from when Jerusalem was destroyed to at least Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year (Nebuzaradan - 2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:30).

  Add to this the fact that Jeremiah 25:1 corelates the reign of Nebuchadnezzar with Jehoiakim's 4th year (counting accession year) in agreement with Daniel 1:1 (not counting accession year).

  Add to this the fact that 2 Kings 24:1 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem at some point an absolute minimum of 3 years prior to the siege in 598, during which Jehoiakim paid tribute.

  thirdwitness has no case.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Who is this god known as Carl Jonsson that you put so much faith in?
• 

  thirdwitness

  First let me answer the Nebuzaradan/Arioch question.

  There could be a number of explanations for this apparent discrepancy. As we have already shown 607 is the only date that will work with Bible prophecies and chronology. And we have shown that Daniel's 3 year training period could not have been completed until after Neb's 2nd year of actual rule over Babylon. In fact, we have shown that Daniel was not even in Babylon at all during the 2nd year of Neb's actual rule over Babylon.
  
  It is possible that Nebuzaradan was also known as Arioch and is merely the same person. Since Daniel 2 is written in Aramaic whereas the other scriptures concerning Nebuzaradan are written in Hebrew it is possible that Arioch is his name in Aramaic. Since Jewish tradition holds that Nebuzaradan means 'roars like a lion' because of the lionlike manner in which he treated the Jews it is possible that he received this name as a result of his treatment toward the Jews but Daniel simply chose to use his name given to him at birth.
  
  There are many examples in the Bible of persons being called by two different names. For example, in the book of Daniel at chapter 4 it reads in verse 18, “‘This was the dream that I myself, King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar, beheld; and you yourself, O Bel·te·shaz´zar , say what the interpretation is, forasmuch as all the [other] wise men of my kingdom are unable to make known to me the interpretation itself. But you are competent, because the spirit of holy gods is in you.’"
  
  Who is this Belteshazzar? Wasn't it Daniel that interpreted Neb's dream? If the Bible had not provided us with further information some may have claimed this to be a contradiction. But of course we know as the Bible says at Daniel 1:7 that the principal court official 'assigned to Daniel [the name of] Bel·te·shaz´zar'. The same is true of his 3 Hebrew companions. They also had their Hebrew name and were assigned Babylonian names. So it would not be surprising if this was also done in the case of Arioch or Nebuzaradan. Perhaps he was of another nation and an addition to his birth name he was given a Babylonian name.
  
  Another possible explanation is that there were more than one chief of the bodyguard. Since Nebuzaradan was often absent from Babylon because of the military service he performed on the battle front, it is likely that there was also a chief of the bodyguard to handle the duties back home in Babylon as well. That chief was known as Arioch. The proof that there were two separate and distinct positions may be found in the fact that Arioch is called 'chief of the king's bodyguard' whereas Nebuzaradan is merely called 'chief of the bodyguard'.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Jeffro, your arguments are easily shown to be inconsistent and we have already done this. Here it is.

  Daniel's gross inconsistency?

  To get around the problems caused to their theories by the book of Daniel, some 587 promoters have come up with an extremely complex way of “explaining” the problems. It causes Daniel's book to suffer from gross inconsistency, for those who believe in 587 anyway.

  Daniel 1:5 says, “Furthermore, to them [Daniel and his friends] 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 .”

  That may seem straightforward, but no – for self-proclaimed “chronologists” are on hand to tell you what it actually means.

  They claim Daniel's so-called “three years” of training was actually somewhere between one year, two months and two years, two months. That way, they can say Daniel was brought to Babylon in the artificial exile they have invented (which Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and others all forgot to mention), can finish his training, be brought before the King, and become known as one of the wise men of Babylon – all in time to interpret the dream before Neb's 2nd year ends.

  How? By claiming that Daniel's training is counted in the manner of a Jewish King, but linked to the years of Neb's kingship, but counted in the manner of a Babylonian king.
  Click to enlarge
  Click to enlarge

  Neb began his reign in August 605; Daniel began his training in February 604, and just two months later in April, he has completed 1 year of training. But it's only been two months, why? Because it is reasoned that Neb's first year as king (after his accession year) begins in April 604, and therefore so does Daniel's second year of training. When April 603 arrives Daniel has completed 2 years of training (even though it has only been 1 year and two months). Neb now starts his 2nd year in Spring, 603. It is during this 2nd year that Daniel will complete his training and interpret Neb's dream and become district ruler. So, even if Daniel interprets the dream on the very last day of Neb's 2nd year, Daniel's 3 years of training would at the very most be 2 years and 2 months, or as little as 1 year 2 months. Confused? –See our charts to see how this looks on a time-line

  Keep in mind that the Babylonians do not count the accession year as the first year. Only Jewish Kings were known to be counted in that way. So we must assume that for some odd reason, when Daniel penned the words “three years... at the end of”, he was using the years of Neb's reign to count the years of his training, but in the manner that the years of Jewish kings are counted. Oh, and this is after doing the opposite four verses earlier (in Daniel 1:1) where he counts Jehoiakim's reign in the manner the Babylonians use.

  Do you really think all of this is what Daniel was thinking when he said, “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”? Or do you rather think it is an example of someone with an agenda going to extremely complicated lengths to strain out of the scriptures what they want it to say? Besides, using such logic, if today was December 31st, and you asked me a question, I could say “I will answer you at the end of two years”, and then answer you the very next day on January 1st.

  I was unable to find a single Bible translation that agrees with such an idea in this part of Daniel.

  Holman Christian Standard Bible: They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to serve in the king's court.

  New American Standard: “...and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king's personal service.

  King James Version: “...so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”

  New Living Translation: “They were to be trained for a three-year period, and then some of them would be made his advisers in the royal court.”

  God's Word: “They were to be trained for three years. After that, they were to serve the king.”

  Young's Literal: “...so as to nourish them three years, that at the end thereof they may stand before the king.”

  If the “explanation” offered is correct, then this scripture should imply that the training was to end in Nebuchadnezzar's third year (if counted in the manner of a Jewish king) – but it doesn't. All translations are quite clear. When something happens “at the end” of three years, that is three years later. It's really simple.

  As we mentioned in the main article, Daniel uses the word “‘lemiktzat’ for describing the end in time period of something. Interestingly, this word is derived from word ‘ketz’ which means end to something or someone. To claim that three years are not actually three years is like to claim ten days are not actually ten days.”

  Furthermore, this explanation causes such weird inconsistency on Daniel's part. First Daniel uses the Babylonian method of counting years for the Jewish King, then four verses later the Jewish method for counting the years of the Babylonian King, then reverts back to the Babylonian method again a few verses after that for counting the years of Neb once more.

  Scripture	587's “explanation”
  Daniel 1:1, “in the third year of Jehoiakim”	Babylonian method of counting years – ascension months not counted
  Daniel 1:5 “end of “ three years	Jewish method of counting years – ascension months are counted as a year
  Daniel 2:1, “in the second year of Neb”	Babylonian method – ascension months not counted

  Why such inconsistency? Because it's the only way 587-promoters can cling on to their theories. In other words, they want to treat Daniel's training as if it were a king's reign! And they want to count his “accession year” in training, as one year. Who ever heard of such a thing? However, they do not want to count Neb's accession year as one year, and they do not want to count Jehoiakim's accession year as one year. That is the only way their dates fit. Yet the 607 interpretation does not have this inconsistency.

  That's not the only inconsistency they create in the book of Daniel. When Daniel 10:1 says in the “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”, 587-promoters revert back to the 607 method of dating. See the chart below:

  Scripture	587 interpretation	607 interpretation
  Daniel 1:1 – “the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah”	Jehoiakim's Kingship of Judah	Babylonian Kingship over Jews
  Daniel 2:1 – “the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar”	Neb's Kingship of Babylon	Babylonian Kingship over Jews
  Daniel 10:1 – “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”	Babylonian/Persian Kingship over Jews	Babylonian/Persian Kingship over Jews

  In other words, they want to count Jehoiakim's kingship from the start of his reign, and the same with Nebuchadnezzar, but they do not want to do the same with Cyrus.

  By placing the events of Daniel 10 in the “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”, Daniel demonstrates that all of his time keeping must refer to the Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. Otherwise, if 587-promoters were consistent in their methods of counting, they would have to insist that Daniel was actually serving under the King of Persia many years earlier during the third year of Cyrus. Obviously that is impossible. So the only way for them to avoid this problem is to make Daniel's methods of dating inconsistent – a second time.

  If the 587-promoters abandon this theory, and go back to saying Daniel interpreted the dream during his 2nd year of training – before the three full years ended, they simply swap one set of inconsistencies for another. As covered in the main article, that theory makes the story appear silly, and breaks the chronology of the narrative. So if you are a 587 promoter, you have a choice – either defend one set of inconsistencies, or defend another set instead. It's just a matter of deciding which is your personal favorite. Promoters of 607, on the other hand, have no such headaches because that interpretation is consistent throughout the book of Daniel.

  This is often the case with the “explanations” of how 587 supposedly fits with the Bible. When the inevitable fatal problems are pointed out, defenders of 587 conjure up ever more lengthy and complicated “explanations”, to patch-up the problems caused by the last set of “explanations”. Which is followed by explanations of the explanations. What one eventually has is a great patchwork of interpretation and explanation many pages long. No doubt at this moment someone, somewhere, is cooking up more lengthy, complex and highly strained patchwork to “explain” the problems with their theory that we've pointed out here.

  However, the simple 607 chronology keeps both Daniel's dating methods and the narrative consistent throughout the book. We don't need to explain away any inconsistency – because there is none. All we need to explain is that Daniel uses the same method of counting years throughout his book – that of Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. Just as he does the same thing with the Persian Kingship over the Jews in Daniel 10. This 607-based interpretation also harmonizes with dates of the first exile given in other Bible books such as Jeremiah, which in turn harmonizes with the prophecies of the 70 years for Jerusalem, Tyre, and the 40 for Egypt. The 587 interpretation on the other hand, is disharmonious with all of this.

  Go back | Appendix menu