The issues about this have been beaten to death. I spent my whole commute to work trying to ponder the scriptures involved, especially remember one of those sites, I think it was jehovahs-judgment.co.uk or something that had this discussion of the scriptures and how all of it supports 607 B.C.E. I felt ill-equipped to discuss the issues without reading pertinent scriptures myself. Here is what I found:
Jeremiah 25:1 confirms that the fourth year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, was Nebuchadnezzar's first year. Daniel reports being in Babylon before Nebuchadnezzar's second [or third, ignoring his ascension year as was common in Babylonian records] year as king. Daniel's deportation to Babylon is not listed in Jeremiah 52:28-30. Three separate times Nebuchadnezzar takes captives to Babylon, as confirmed by that record and the relevant scriptures in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. By Jeremiah's record, this happens in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th, 18th, and 23rd years of reigning. No mention is made of captives taken in Nebuchadnezzar's first year.
The only reference to Nebuchadnezzar's first year that I know of is Jeremiah 25:1--which is right before or concurrent with Jeremiah's prophecy regarding "these nations" serving Babylon 70 years. For that to be fulfilled, for one, our count of time has to start with the time period that reasonably shows all these nations--NOT just Jerusalem--under the heel of Babylon.
Also noteworthy is that when the 70 years are fulfilled, Babylon itself is to be punished. Since everyone agrees the ax fell in 539 B.C.E., it makes more sense to count 70 years from there and wind up at 609 B.C.E.--and we're discussing this in its context, not really as it relates to the 1914 calculation as promulgated by the Watchtower Society. It's a composite prophecy, what Jeremiah foretells--you can't focus only on Jerusalem for its fulfillment. That's an important thing to notice. I was just reading the Insight book's discussion of this matter, and it quotes Jeremiah 25:11, yet completely glosses over the fact that this prophecy--and this is supported by the context--relates to several nations, not just Jerusalem.
A significant piece of data to note in this context is 2 Kings 24:1-7. It shows that Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah and king of Judah, became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal for three years. This means he paid tribute to Nebuchadnezzar--whose first year coincides with Jehoiakim's fourth.
From what we know, Jehoiakim's vassalage had to happen between his 4th and 11th years of reign. This leaves open at least the possibility of others besides the 4,600 captives Jeremiah reports being taken to Babylon. As a vassal, it's not like Jehoiakim had a choice.
Daniel reports in Daniel 1:1, 2 that Jehoiakim's fourth year--which by Daniel's Babylonian reckoning was his 'third' year, ignoring the ascension year--was marked by an attack on Jerusalem, and a taking of articles from the temple. During this attack, Daniel was taken to Babylon. This was Nebuchadnezzar's first year as king.
Why is it not recorded in Jeremiah that this happened? Maybe it was a relatively few people. Or maybe, as is obvious from say, the Gospels, one writer manages to record events that another writer does not. Also consider that 2 Kings 24:1 says Jehoiakim was a vassal for three years and THEN he rebelled. If, as the Society claims, the events of Daniel 1:1, 2 happened during Jehoiakim's third year of vassalage to Babylon, this has to mean Jehoiakim rebelled BEFORE his vassalage ended, after 2 years and not 3 years as 2 Kings 24 reports. Does that make sense? It's a clear contradiction--2 Kings said Jehoiakim rebelled AFTER the 3 years, not before or during.
The more logical conclusion to reach is that this event occurred at the BEGINNING of Jehoiakim's vassalage.
Of course, an equally valid concern comes up with Daniel chapter 2, with Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the king's SECOND year, when it says Daniel was trained for THREE years and THEN brought before the king. Even if this is actually Nebuchadnezzar's third year of ruling, the timing is off. How do you explain that?
Well, if we go with the Society's logic, this is the SECOND year of Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon, and not actually Nebuchadnezzar's second year of ruling, isn't it? If that's true, yet Daniel was taken captive in the THIRD year of Jehoiakim's vassalage, apparently, Daniel travelled back in time to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream!
The more logical educated guess here--in the absence of any statement to clarify--would be that this event occurred towards the end of Daniel's training and that, given that all the wise men were about to be KILLED, it was an emergency one would imagine the parties involved wanted to resolve even if it meant interrupting Daniel's training--or more likely, just finishing said training after the incident was over. (After all, the Bible does report that Daniel was basically at the head of the class. Why is it unreasonable to think they would've called him in to help?) The bigger picture here also is that this event clearly did not and could not have happened in like, 607 B.C.E. or something.
I'm not familiar with everything the Society has said on these issues, but clearly one has to take Daniel on his word and not assume he made up a system of reckoning kings' reigns that is found nowhere else in scripture. (If he had, one would think that a man of his intelligence would have indicated as much.) We also have to conclude that Jeremiah's account of exiles taken is incomplete--during that event, he was rather busy giving the cup of God's wrath to all the nations and thus he may have been elsewhere when the captives were taken. Just a guess.
Still, why no record in his account? Well, we could easily ask the same questions of any two Bible books that tell the same story from a different perspective. Would we conclude that because John recorded the words of Christ that were not recorded in Matthew, that therefore John's words require a convoluted explanation for their existence? If we believe the Bible is God's Word, it's reasonable to think that one book--in this case, Daniel--covered details not discussed in other books of the Bible. After all, he was a power player in these events, an eyewitness to them.
I don't know that this relates to the 607 vs. 587 B.C.E. issue, but I felt a need to examine the relevant scriptures on these issues and see what I could come up with. It wasn't really until after I left the JWs that I even realized Nebuchadnezzar took captives 3 different times from Jerusalem--and didn't even really take everyone as I'd always assumed! Daniel records a fourth taking of captives that, in line with...what is it, the Babylonian Chronicle?--that shows Nebuchadnezzar conquering the region of Hattu at about the time he became king.
The jehovahs-judgment site I was reading said it would be impossible for Nebuchadnezzar to go secure the kingship and still take captives from Jerusalem. For some reason, that line of reasoning detaches from logic for me. See, Nebuzaradan was the point man on military ops for Babylon, clearly--at least he was later on. Just taking that reality shows me that, just the same as the Vice President could get sworn in upon learning of the President's death today, and there could still be military operations going on that are authorized by the VP, so Nebuchadnezzar could easily give orders for captives to be taken from Jerusalem [by his field commanders] and still secure his kingship in Babylon. That's just common sense, isn't it?
Well, that was a helpful study of the scriptures for me. I suppose, even though my faith in God and the Bible is wavering from seeing some pretty unfair stuff done to women and a lot of brutality altogether, I still respect its broader themes and the example Jesus set. Go figure.
I don't know if anyone will even read this, but if so, please share your thoughts. Take care.
--sd-7