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

by thirdwitness 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness


    Jeffro: 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.

    Actually no that is not the case. If Jehoiakim became a vassal king of Babylon around Dec, 621, then (not counting his accession year) his first year as vassal king would begin in April, 620. 2nd year would begin April 619. 3rd year would begin April, 618. 3 years would be completed in Dec 618 still during his 3rd year. His 4th year would not begin until April, 617. He was killed Feb, 617 (I believe it was if memory serves me correctly) before his 4th year as vassal king began. So he would have ruled as vassal king for over 3 years but have still been in his 3rd year.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    thirdverywitless said:

    : Otherwise the accounts make no sense whatsoever.

    The accounts make perfect sense as written, and as Jeffro and I have described. It is only JWs who have an agenda here -- to support the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    : Evidently the wise men did not even consider him enough to tell him what was going on.

    Which is precisely why Daniel in chapter 2 could not yet have completed his training. Daniel 1 clearly states that by the end of the training, Nebuchadnezzar considered him and his companions to be extremely wise. Since in Daniel 2, Daniel is unknown to Nebuchadnezzar, the chapter's events must precede the ending events of chapter 1.

    Oh wait! Maybe Nebuchadnezzar forgot about this man that he considered ten times wiser than his home grown conjurers. Or maybe there was a scribal error and the book of Daniel isn't talking about Daniel at all but Belteshazzar. Or maybe the moon isn't made of green cheese after all.

    It is this kind of completely ass-backwards 'thinking' on the part of JW defenders, this absolute inability to analyze data intelligently, that makes much JW exposition on the Bible so ridiculous. It is this moronic spiritual blindness that resulted in Russell's and Rutherford's completely failed predictions, and later in the 1975 fiasco spearheaded by Fred Franz, and their followers' willingness to keep following them despite such abject failure. Such is the power of a cult.

    AlanF

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Thirdwitness,

    It is a collaboration of myself and others.

    Might we ask who are these 'others'? Would one of them be the esteemed Mr. Rolf Furuli himself? Are any of them affiliated with Brooklyn Writing, or Writing from any other of the branches of the WTS?

    HS

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    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.

    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.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    thirdwitness said:

    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.

    Then he complained about verses 18 to 20 of Daniel chapter 1. However, there is absolutely no problem with the account in Daniel 1 when it is considered that the events in chapter 2 come before the end of the three years of training.

    Verse 18 indicates that all of those who were trained were brought in before the king, not just Daniel and his 3 friends.

    Verse 19 indicates that none of those other trainees were found to be like those 4 individuals, and then goes on to state that Daniel and his companions “continued to stand before the king”. That they continued suggests that they had already been before the king in some capacity, which agrees with the events in chapter 2.

    You are being misleading when you query Nebuchadnezzar’s knowledge of “how great Daniel is at the end of the three year training”. Though Nebuchadnezzar knew that Daniel was better when he interpreted the dream, he may not have yet realised that he was “ten times better”. But more significantly, it is all four of them who Nebuchadnezzar found to be “ten times better”, not just Daniel.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Jeffro: 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.

    Actually no that is not the case. If Jehoiakim became a vassal king of Babylon around Dec, 621, then (not counting his accession year) his first year as vassal king would begin in April, 620. 2nd year would begin April 619. 3rd year would begin April, 618. 3 years would be completed in Dec 618 still during his 3rd year. His 4th year would not begin until April, 617. He was killed Feb, 617 (I believe it was if memory serves me correctly) before his 4th year as vassal king began. So he would have ruled as vassal king for over 3 years but have still been in his 3rd year.

    2 Kings 24:1 states that Jehoiakim was 'servant' for 3 years. There is not even a reason why he would be regarded as having an accession year within his own reign simply because he began paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar.

    It is amusing that you must come up with an 'apostate™' teaching away from the Watchtower Society's interpretation in order to explain the discrepancy. Specifically, the Society teaches:

    In 620 B.C.E. [Nebuchadnezzar] compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute, but after about three years Jehoiakim revolted. In 618 B.C.E., or during Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary ruler, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem.
  • stevenyc
    stevenyc
    Steve: Can I ask, when do you think the events of Ch 1:18,19 took place?

    Not sure which scripture you mean.

    I mean the events of Daniel 1:18,19. steve

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    There is nothing new in thirdwitness' most recent post. I and others have already refuted the points he thinks he has therein, and since he cannot actually reason on what is presented, he just repeats the same old copy-and-paste and imagines that he's proven some point. It really is pathetic.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness
    In 620 B.C.E. [Nebuchadnezzar] compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute, but after about three years Jehoiakim revolted. In 618 B.C.E., or during Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary ruler, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem.

    The dates are estimates. If you want to say that he became vassal king in the first part of 620 and revolted the very end of 618 that is acceptable and would coincide with the scriptures.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    What's the matter, thirdwitless? Cat run off with your brain like it did with scholar pretendus'?

    Ignoring the refutations of your opponenets and merely reposting what has already been refuted does not help you look good to those JW lurkers out there.

    AlanF

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit