Jehoiakim's third year of reign, or 11th year of reign, which is correct?

by VM44 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jeanniebeanz

  *pops popcorn*

  *opens a Coke*

  <sip>... <crunch, munch, crunch> ...<sip>

  *passes popcorn and a Coke to AlanF and other spectators taking their seats for the show*
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  This circus of crackpots includes Carl Jonsson who will attempt a pseudo- scholarly rebuttal of Furuli's thesis on Oslo Chronology. It seems that apostates are very desperate and frightened of Furuli's laudable scholarship.

  scholar JW
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  It seems that apostates are very desperate and frightened of Furuli's laudable scholarship.

  *applauds the comedy lines in show*
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus crackpoticus said:

  : This circus of crackpots includes

  So you admit to being a crackpot. Wow! You can tell the truth when you put your mind to it!

  : Carl Jonsson who will attempt a pseudo- scholarly rebuttal of Furuli's thesis

  That's entirely typical of you and other crackpots, scholar pretendus -- judging something before you've even seen it.

  I suppose that's why, over the years you've disgraced this board, you've made many, many claims that source references say one thing, when they really say something quite different. In other words, you pretend to have knowledge, when you have zilch. You're a fake.

  When are you going to apologize for lying recently about the contents of Liddell & Scott's Lexicon regarding the meaning of stauros? How about simply admitting that you lied about Deissmann's views on parousia?

  Fact is, crackpots and pathological liars never admit their lies.

  : on Oslo Chronology.

  "Oslo Chronology". LOL! That's like calling Young-Earth Creationism San Diego Paleontology. (The YEC Institute for Creation Research is in the greater San Diego area)

  : It seems that apostates are very desperate and frightened of Furuli's laudable scholarship.

  Not at all. Simply irritated that yet another JW crackpot apologist is attempting to defend nonsense, and getting a hearing from other crackpots, which creates more unnecessary work for us. Did you know that a Velikovsky supporter has adopted Furuli's silly ideas to support Velikovsky? Why am I not surprised?

  AlanF
• 

  JCanon

  Alan F: This is getting pretty funny. Two total crackpots arguing.

  And one of them a pathological liar to boot.

  AlanF

  Oh Alan! Here just in time to save me! Not like you to simply call names without making a comment, but this time you and Jonsson are clearly on my side in this issue. Jonsson notes that Daniel was deported during the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar if I'm not mistaken and thus contradicts the witnesses need for a special type of "vassal" dating for Jehoikim. Call me all the names you want, but you're pretty respected here, why don't you give your opinion or view on the topic being discussed instead of calling fellow humans crackpots? Even though your opinion on this particular issue is already published by you. THAAANKS, Alan.... I know you can give a better excuse for not commenting academically on the topic or at least cut-pasting Jonsson on the topic besides being to above-it-all to talk to severely deranged apostates like Scholar and myself. Right? JC
• 

  JCanon

  For Alan. Here's Alan's statement on this topic, which on close examination I see I only generally agree.

  .....Jehoiakim was Josiah's son, and Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 B.C. was Jehoiakim's 4th year (non-accession system).

  Jeremiah 46:2: For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah.

  From: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm

  I suppose I agree in principle with Alan who bases much on Olof Jonsson since he qualifies that the 4th year of Jehoiakim is still the "accession year" of Nebuchadnezzar. He has to do that because the Bible says at Daniel 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar as "king of Babylon" came to Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim and took Daniel to Babylon. So how can it be the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar in year 3 of Jehoiakim and also be his accession year in year 4 of Jehoiakim? Answer? Two dating systems. Accession and non-accession reckoning. Well.... whatever.

  At any rate, I do agree with Jonsson and Alon on this point, that the third and fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign matches the early years of Nebuchadnezzar. I date the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, accession year system, to year 4 of Jehoiakim, though.

  Alan might have been trying to be consistent with the Babylonian Chronicle in this regard which dates the deportation in the last month of his accession year but also the battle with Necho that same year. Thus in the Babylonian Chronicle both events happen the same year. This contradicts the Bible in principle since the Bible dates one event in year 3 of Jehoiakim and the other in year 4. My contention is that since Nebuchadnezzar's rule per the Bible is 45 years long and per the Babylonian records only 43 years long, that his reign was revised and reduced by two years, but to compensate for that, some of the events were squeezed together, thus the events in the Bible are consistently one year later than in the Babylonian Chronicle.

  Thanks, Alan! Have you seen my pal, Farkel around? How is he doing?

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  
  
  
  
  

  JC Canon :Sorry, Nebuchadnezzer had not begun to rule in his own right as 'King of Babylon' until shortly after the fourth year of Jehoiakim for up until the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzer was merely a crown prince. Jeremiah 25:1 1 clearly refers to Nebuchadnezzer as king of Babylon at his first year which is synchronized with the fourth year of Jehoiakim as king of Judah with the overthrow of Nechoh. The very fact that Jeremiah states that the "first year of Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon" proves that this event alone marks the beginning of Nebuchadnezzer's reign as 'king of Babylon' in his own right. This is confirmed by Jerehiah's later reference to that same event in 46:2. scholarJW

  Thanks for the references and I completely understand why you would draw this conclusion. But the fact is that co-rulerships in ancient times were quite common, in fact, they were the rule. That's because it promoted stability of the empire and easy transition from the father-king to the son-king who had some hands-on experience before becoming the sole king and inheriting everything. This is also the case with the Judean and Isreaelite kings who patterned their kingships after the nations. The only critical point of error that you have is that the co-rulers also had the title of "king". Thus it was appropriate to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as the "king of Babylon".

  Even so, we know from Babylonian records that Daniel was deported in the last month of the year. The history indicates while Nebuchadnezzar was on this expedition his father died and he went back to Babylon. So by the last month of the year his father died, it would have been his accession year and he would have been considered "king" at that time during his "accession" year, particularly late in his accession year. So there is no conflict. But I do understand your argument. But I don't believe it is strong enough under the circumstances of the potential co-rulership or if this is a reference to Nabonidus having already died to decide a subjective dating system was employed here. I think you might go that far if you didn't see any other options to try to make the Bible work, but you don't have to in this case.

  I don't know how pertinent this is, but if what I say is correct, and the third year of Jehoiakim was the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, then his 11th year would fall in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is the year the Bible says Jehoiachin became king for three months, but the last three months of that 8th year! Look:

  Jehoiakim,Nebucadnezzar 03, Accession - Nebuchadnezzar makes Jehoiakim a vassal, he rebels in 3 years. Deports Daniel 04, 01 05, 02 06, 03 Jehoiakim rebels. 07, 04 08, 05 09, 06 10, 07 11, 08 Jehoiakim dies

  If the Bible referes to him as the "king of Babylon" then it means his father had either died already or he was crowned as king/co-ruler at this time. I'll try to see if I can find some references on the co-rulership and post.

  Thanks for your information. By the way, there is no problem having Daniel deported in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, it does not affect anything. I'm not sure what this ultimately contradicts? Can you fill me in? Or do you just need to agree with the WTS?

  JC

  Addendum: Of course, an even better example and more pertinent is Belshazzar. We know he was co-ruler with his father Nabonidus during his entire reign, Nabonidus survived him. Yet he is called "king" of Babylon. I will still try and see if Nebuchadnezzar had any reference or suggestion of being co-ruler for any of his years historically.
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Scholar. I found this reference which might be pertinent...

  More recent studies have uncovered a couple of very interesting facts about ancient dating of the regnal (king) year. The Jews started the first king year from the first month (Jewish Tishri/Ethanim - our October) preceding the year of succession; the Babylonians started the first king year from the next new year's day (in April). There, it would appear the Jewish writings would show one year earlier than the Babylonians. In accordance with the Chaldeans, Nebuchadnezzar actually started his king year April, 604 B.C.; but he was crowned September, 605 B.C.

  If this is accurate, then Nebuchadnezzar was king by the time of the deportation of Daniel which was the last month of the year, the same month he deported Jehoiachin. For some reason this was considered the best time to deport. ???

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Not at all. Simply irritated that yet another JW crackpot apologist is attempting to defend nonsense, and getting a hearing from other crackpots, which creates more unnecessary work for us. Did you know that a Velikovsky supporter has adopted Furuli's silly ideas to support Velikovsky? Why am I not surprised?

  Having noted this, I wonder what Furuli is really up to. It would seem simply JW apologetics bottom line. I ran the 70-year deportation beginning the 23rd year rather than the year Jerusalem falls by him, which proves the witnesses misapply (as he does) the 70 years and misquotes Josephus, and that didn't seem to bother him. So, not much hope there.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Scholar, apparently some general specific dates survive. I found this quote regarding the death of Nabonidus..

  Before he reached the border of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar received the news that his father had died on Abu (Ab) 8 (approximately Aug. 15, 605 b.c.), and hastened home to secure the throne.

  The Babylonian Chronicle was revised, as I noted but the general time of the death of his father might be correct. In this case Nebuchadnezzar would have become king in August and would have been king during his accession year from August through March/April when he deported Daniel.

  The text indicates he "conquered Hatti-Land" at the same time he was fighting Nechoh. I'll check the text itself and post it if I can find it, but the Bible suggests he conquered Jerusalem first and deported Daniel. Then probably in response to this invasion, Pharoah Nechoh went up to Carchemish to challenge him the next year in the 4th year of Jehoiakim who had already been a vassal. But I'll check my facts further.

  More later..

  JC