by thirdwitness 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Why, didn't Daniel (ch 2:15) know the reason for his fate if he was already in the kings service as one of the wise men?
That is a good question. I do not know for sure. Maybe because the Babylonian chief priests did not put much stock in this young Jewish man as being able to tell the dream. I picture there being a whole bunch of wise men and I doubt the chief wise men consulted with all of them. Maybe they assumed that since none of their wise head ones could tell the dream then nobody could.
thirdwitness,
thanks for your replies.
Can I ask, when do you think the events of Ch 1:18,19 took place?
steve
thirdwitless said:
:: Why, didn't Daniel (ch 2:15) know the reason for his fate if he was already in the kings service as one of the wise men?
: That is a good question. I do not know for sure.
But you earlier claimed that you knew for certain that the events in Daniel 2 occurred after all of the events in Daniel 1. You specifically said that before the events of Daniel 1 occurred, Nebuchadnezzar already knew that Daniel was extremely wise. Which is it?
Haven't your handlers given you any answers?
JW lurkers, please take note that thirdwitless has again ignored every point of refutation in my long post above.
And he continues to pretend that his expositon on the 70 years of Tyre does not contradict the Society's.
And he continues to pretend that the Society's interpretation of Genesis does not fly in the face of direct biblical statements.
AlanF
could these be the same event?
They could be the same event, but it is more likely that the events at the end of chapter 1 happened a little later than those in chapter 2.
Aside from the fact that the 3 year training would have ended after Neb's actual 2nd year of rule and not during that would be impossible.
2 Kings 24:1 says that 3 years had passed after Jehoiakim was first faced by Nebuchadnezzar, whereas Daniel 1:1 indicates the 3rd year of Jehoiakim that had not yet ended. Of course, these 2 scriptures refer to different events, but the Society claims that they are the same event. So thirdwitness, we could similarly state: "Aside from the fact that the 3 year paying of tribute would have ended after Jehoiakim's 3rd year of vassalage and not during that would be impossible." Moron.
Also after the 3 year training period Daniel and his friends entered into the king's service for the first time. In Daniel 2, Daniel is already in the King's service and that is why he is also to be killed. So the answer is clearly NO, it could not be the same event.
The "they" and "them" in chapter 1 refers to all of those who were sent for training (see verses 3-4), so there is no inconsistency at all that Nebuchadnezzar may already have met some of those people. On the other hand, chapter 2 suggests that Nebuchadnezzar really didn't know yet that Daniel was "ten times wiser" than all the other wise men. thirdwitness is still yet to address this issue.
I am not understanding why you say this.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand.
I have shown how the account of the 3 years of training would not allow for Daniel to interpret Neb's dream in his 2nd year of actual rule and still be in the training period.
No, you haven't, because chapter 1 does not actually indicate that Nebuchadnezzar did not already know Daniel, but only that all those who were taken for training were sent before the king after 3 years.
I have used the parallel how Cyrus is said to be in his 3rd year by Daniel although he was really in about his 20th year as king.
Of course that is not in a position of vassalage at all, and so is a completely different situation, which simple serves to remove confusion of the relative placement of Cyrus's reign. The fact that Daniel makes that part of the account unambiguous makes it even less likely that that Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 would both use ambiguous - and inconsistent - starting points for reigning that you claim.
I will also address the point about Jehoiakim being in his '3rd year' in Daniel 1:1 and why Daniel could not have meant that he was in his actual 3rd year of ruling over Juda
Jehoiakim being in his 3rd actual year is the only interpretation that is consistent with 2 Kings 24:1, so it will be interesting to see what lies you spill forth. You also have not explained how your interpretation introduces the same conflict between Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1 that you accuse others of introducing between the first two chapters of Daniel.
In Daniel 1:1 Daniel 1:1 , the prophet says that he was taken into exile in the “third year of Jehoiakim”. Daniel was speaking from the perspective of Babylon, and he was referring to the third year of Jehoiakim's vassal Kingship to the Babylonian Empire. All dates given by Daniel talk from this perspective. –See Appendix N
(I won't bother pasting the entire original quoted webpage.) Are you the author of that website, or just happy to violate copyright?
You have no evidence for what is claimed about the disjointed position of Jehoiakim's reign. 2 Kings 24:1 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar did come against Judah prior to the first major exile in 598, and at that time Jehoiakim presented Nebuchadnezzar with a tribute, which included treasure and likely also included slaves, as was common practice. Berossus agrees that slaves were taken. So though there was not an exile worthy of inclusion by Jeremiah (in the 8th, 19th and 24th years as Jeremiah would reckon them, as the interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30 is from Babylonian accession-year sources), it is not at all surprising that Daniel and other youths were taken at that time which prevented the siege. In fact, the tribute was likely the cause for Jehoiakim not being concerned about further Babylonian attack (compare Jeremiah 36:24).
Jeffro so let me clear this up. You are saying that Daniel was already district ruler and chief prefect over all the wise men before the 3 years of training ended.
You are saying that this: 18 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 Neb·u·chad·nez´zar. 19 And the king began to speak with them, and out of them all no one was found like Daniel, Han·a·ni´ah, Mish´a·el and Az·a·ri´ah; and they continued to stand before the king. 20 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.
occured after Daniel was ruler over all the jurisditional district of Babylon and chief of all the wise men. And so Neb came in and inquired of these newly trained ones and 'even got to find' that Daniel stood out as ten times better. This should have been no surprise to Neb if this occured after Daniel interpreted the dream . After all, it has already been determined that he was greater than all the wise men in Babylon including the chief wise men because he is the chief of all the wise men already. And district ruler as well. But Neb did not know that he was greater than all the other newly trained ones despite the fact that he had already appointed him ruler and chief of all the wise men and gave him gifts and bowed down to him and paid homage to him because he was able to tell and interpret Neb's dream, something that none of the other long time and head wise men could do. But here after all that Neb is finally finding out how great Daniel is at the end of the three year training.
You really are joking I am certain, right?
AlanF said: :: Why, didn't Daniel (ch 2:15) know the reason for his fate if he was already in the kings service as one of the wise men?
: That is a good question. I do not know for sure.
But you earlier claimed that you knew for certain that the events in Daniel 2 occurred after all of the events in Daniel 1. You specifically said that before the events of Daniel 1 occurred, Nebuchadnezzar already knew that Daniel was extremely wise. Which is it?
I am really surprised at your comment here. The question was why didn't Daniel know that all the wise men were to be killed and he had to inquire about it. This has nothing to do with whether Daniel 1 or Daniel 2 occured first. It is obvious to anyone who does not have an agenda that Daniel 1, his three year training, ended first. And Daniel 2 came sometime after the end of his training. At the end of his three year training he was still a lowly newly trained 'wise man'. He was not recognized by the chief wise men as anything great. Otherwise the accounts make no sense whatsoever. Evidently the wise men did not even consider him enough to tell him what was going on.
Jeffro: I won't bother pasting the entire original quoted webpage.) Are you the author of that website, or just happy to violate copyright?
It is a collaboration of myself and others.
Steve: Can I ask, when do you think the events of Ch 1:18,19 took place?
Not sure which scripture you mean.
