because in Jehoiakim's 'third' regnal year according to your understanding of Daniel 1:1, Nebuchadnezzer was then the King of Babylon but a Crown Prince.
You indicate your obvious lack of understanding. Daniel was taken in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession, although when he was actually taken, Nebuchadnezzar was not actually king. An accession year inherently indicates that a person is only king for part of that year. Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel and his companions on his return to Babylon in 605BC, so yes, at that point he was still Crown Prince. When he got back to Babylon, he took over the kingship. That year was his accession year, though he was only king for part of that year.
It was not until Jehoiakim's fourth year than Nebuchadnezzer became king according to Jeremiah 25:1. Remember, accurate history makes accurate chronology!
To Daniel - using the accession year system - Jehoiakim's third year is what Jeremiah calls his fourth year. Do you need another diagram?
Still waiting on your "chart of Babylonian king and their reigns with their respective dates"
You have frequently told others on this board that if they don't accept the Society's 607 date (without any valid reasons to do so), that they "have to" give an alternative exact date.
So I am sure you will be eager to provide a superior model of the Neo-Babylonian kings showing exact dates for the missing kings.
I like the way you show up scholar pretendus for the ignorant hypocrite he's long proved to be on this board, Jeffro. He demands of others what he's unwilling to do himself. I think a lot of that comes from the demonstrated fact that he has no idea what he's talking about most of the time. If it isn't already in WTS literature, he has no idea what to say.
The "celebrated WT scholar" shows his true face. And from earlier in the thread:
The WT publications have informed the scholarly community of a correct, biblical chronology which cannot be refuted by scholars
So, I`m curious, celebrated WT scholar: Could you please provide us with the "correct, biblical chronology? which cannot be refuted by scholars"? How long was the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil Marodach, Neriglissar, and labashi-marduk (or how the hell it`s spelled). You go on and on about your "correct, biblical chronology bla bla bla". Well, put out or get out.
Once again you misread what the Bible actually says for Daniel was taken In Jehoiakim's third year of kingship which is equivalent to Nebuchadnezzer's seventh regnal year. Daniel does not state that he was taken in Neb's acc or first year for this only corresponds to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. There is absolutely no biblical evidence for Nebuchadnezzer taking captives from Judah in either his acc.or first year. Your chart simply amounts to harnmonize an interpretation which clahes with the evidence.
Once again you misread what the Bible actually says for Daniel was taken In Jehoiakim's third year of kingship which is equivalent to Nebuchadnezzer's seventh regnal year.
What did I misread? Where does it say that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year?
Daniel does not state that he was taken in Neb's acc or first year for this only corresponds to the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
Daniel refers to Jehoiakim's 3rd year because he does not include Jehoiakim's accession year. Daniel's reference to his 3rd year is the same as Jeremiah's reference to his 4th.
There is absolutely no biblical evidence for Nebuchadnezzer taking captives from Judah in either his acc.or first year. Your chart simply amounts to harnmonize an interpretation which clahes with the evidence.
Daniel said he was taken in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim. That is biblical evidence. This is agreed by historians who note that booty (which frequently included people) was taken back to Babylon in that year (605). You have never actually identified any 'evidence' with which I have clashed.
(And when you argue that Nebuchadnezzar was not king but Crown Prince, you might like to think of the title used for Belshazzar when his father was still actually king.)
Daniel 1:1 omits any reference to the year for Nebuchadnezzer but only refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship so it cannot be synchronized with JeremiaH 25:1 because Jeremiah refers to Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year and Nebuchadnezzer's first regnal year or his accession year. Nowhere does the Bible state that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his acc year or his first year but only in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship.
Daniel 1:1 omits any reference to the year for Nebuchadnezzer but only refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship so it cannot be synchronized with JeremiaH 25:1 because Jeremiah refers to Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year and Nebuchadnezzer's first regnal year or his accession year. Nowhere does the Bible state that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his acc year or his first year but only in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship.
Daniel 1:1 omits any reference to the year for Nebuchadnezzer but only refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship so it cannot be synchronized with JeremiaH 25:1 because Jeremiah refers to Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year and Nebuchadnezzer's first regnal year or his accession year. Nowhere does the Bible state that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his acc year or his first year but only in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship.
It makes perfect sense that Daniel would omit the year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign if he was in his accession year. That would have been, by Daniel's reckoning, Jehoiakim's third year. And that is exactly when Daniel said that it was.
You correctly indicate that Jeremiah's reference to Nebuchadnezzar's first year is his accession year, and then you ignore the fact that Daniel would have referred to the first years of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim as their accession years, which would not be counted by Daniel, hence he omits Nebuchadnezzar's year of reign and refers to Jehoiakim's 'third' year rather than describing them as 'first' and 'fourth' years.
There is no complexity, no guesswork of the reader to establish what Jehoiakim's kingship might be relative to. It is the simple, honest interpretation of the scripture which does not require twisting and contorting to fit a doctrine.
Anyone who has been following this thread can see that you are simply too stubborn to accept anything the Society hasn't told you.
