In Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophesy p. 46 par. 2, the Dan. 2:1 pass "second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar," is explained to mean the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as world ruler, 606/605 B.C.E., or 2 years after destroying Jerusalem and its temple in 605 B.C.E. Is this correct? There seams to be a technical problem here, because two different people in Nebuchadnezzar's ruling cabinet, both having the same office of oversight, are in office at the same! In Daniel 2:14-15, Arioch is mentioned as being the "chief to the king's bodyguard" (see Insight, Vol. 1, p. 163, Arioch #2). However, at Jer. 39:9-11, 13; 40:1-2,10, 43:6, 52:14-15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 30, Nebuzaradan is also said to be Nebuchadnezzar's "chief of the bodyguard." He is mentioned as the one who directed the Babylonian operation of destroying the city of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., (see Insight Vol. 2., p. 482, Nebuzaradan). Furthermore, and here's the key point, 5 years later, which is long past the 606/605 B.C.E. date, Jer. 52:30 states "Nebuzaradan the chief of he bodyguard," took other Jews into exile, apparently those who had fled to surrounding territories. If our chronology is correct for Dan 2:1, then just who was "chief of the bodyguard" at that time? Obviously, this is an important point, because this would call into question whether or not Nebuchadnezzar is being identified as world ruler after destroying Jerusalem, and of course, impact our understanding of what we call the "gentile times."
Furthermore, another misquoted scripture, used in the Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy book, is Luke 21:20-27. Clearly, this shows that the "appointed times of the nations" refers to Jerusalem's destruction; all you have to do is read it. There's really, no interpretation! Another scripture taken out-of-context is Acts 3:21 (see Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy! Pg. 96). This is used to support the notion that "the times of restoration of all things," occurs at the end of the "trampling" by the "nations." However, as Acts 3:24 points out directly, this "restoration of all things," was already taking place, for "all the prophets, in fact, from Samuel on and those in succession, just as many as have spoken, have also plainly declared these days" (Acts 3:24). In other words, it was occurring then, not at some future time, such as 1914!
There's a more subtle hint at the Society's mishandling of the chronology of Daniel 2:1, and it's found at Ezekiel 14:14, and 14:20. In these two verses, Daniel must have been well know by the Israelites in Babylon, because his name is placed between two well know men of faith, real spiritual giants! Noah was well known for his righteousness and as the preserver of life for the human race, and Job, for his unwavering integrity to God. Interestingly, Daniel is included here, and must have been considered, by the time these verses were received, as a model of integrity and righteousness. In fact, the context of Ezekiel 14:12-23, clearly indicates that the people were thinking that God would let his exterminating-judgment pass because of the presence of such righteous men.
In Keil-Delitzch's Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9, The Prophecies of Ezekiel, p. 183, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint edition, 1980, an interesting comment is made:
The threat contained in the preceding word of God, that if the idolaters did not repent, God would not answer them in any other way than with an exterminating judgment, left the possibility still open, that He would avert the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem for the sake of the Judah and Jerusalem for the sake of the righteous therein, as He had promised the patriarch Abraham that He would do in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. Xviii. 23 sqq.). This hope, which might be cherished by the people and by the elders who had come to the prophet, is now to be taken from the people by the word of God which follows, containing as it does the announcement, that if any land should sin so grievously against God by its apostasy, He would be driven to inflict upon it the punishments threatened by Moses against apostate Israel (Lev. Xxvi. 22, 25, 26, and elsewhere), namely, to destroy both man and beast, and make the land a desert; it would be of no advantage to such a land to have certain righteous men, such as Noah, Daniel, and Job, living therein. For although these righteous men would be saved themselves, their righteousness could not possibly secure salvation for the sinners.
Therefore, would the "word of Jehovah" (Ezek. 14:12) have included Daniel, if he was not well know by the Israelites for his integrity and righteousness before God? So when was this "word of Jehovah" given? Evidently, somewhere between the 6th and 7th year of Ezekiel's exile (Ezek. 8:1, 20:1), certainly before Jerusalem's destruction (Ezek. 32:21). Looking back now to Dan. 2:46, King Nebuchadnezzar "fell down upon his face, and to Daniel he paid homage, and he said to offer even a present and incense to him." He then praises God (Dan. 2:46), and notice what happens next: "Consequently the king made Daniel someone great, and many big gifts he have 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… but Daniel was in the court of the king" (Dan. 2:48-49. This high appointment obviously became well known, and no doubt his record of faithfulness would now be placed in the public eye. So, if this occurred in the actual "second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar," there would be ample time for Daniel to have accrued a public record of his faithfulness by the time Ezekiel's mention of him (Dan. 2:1, note: "the second year," was probably his 3rd regnal year, since the text adds the expression "of the kingship" to indicate an official year, the accession year not included -- for a breakdown, see Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah," Journal of Near Eastern Studies (1956): 227; contrast with Jer. 25:1 where the first year refers to Nebuchadrezzar's initial year, not his first official year). However, if it occurred much later, two years after Jerusalem's destruction as stated by the Society, this would be before his elevation to public office (to evidently look after the interests of God's people, now living in Babylon), and Daniel's mention in Ezekiel might then seem a bit out-of-place.
For my biblical and chronological calculations, I've relied on a number of sources. Foremost, however, are the
(1) Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, revised 1998 edition, Hendrickson Publishers, hereafter HndBibChron,
(2) The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, by Edwin Thiele, revised 1994, The Zondervan Corporation, hereafter MystNumrs, and
(3) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A.K. Grayson, Eisenbruns, 2000 reprint edition, hereafter AssynBabylnChron.
The accepted (non-JW) date of Jerusalm's fall, namely July 18, is 586 B.C.E. -- see HndBibChron, p. 259, section 442.
In the first place, this more widely accepted date takes into consideration a number of ancient secular texts that appear to be consistent with each other. According to the AssynBabylnChron's record as analyzed by HndBibChron (see p. 252, sect. 430), the Assyrian Empire ended in 609 B.C.E. Now if Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539 B.C.E., the period of 70 years is easy to see, 609 - 539 = 70.
From another angle, the Ptolemy Canon lists the duration of Babylonian rulers and includes important references to Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Nergal-shar-usur, Nabonidus. Now if Nabopolassar drove Ashur-uballit out of Haran in Nabopolassar's 16th year and the next year he defeated the combined Egyptian and Assyrian forces, thus bringing the Assyrian Empire to an end in 609 B.C.E. in his 17th year (see HndBibChron p. 252, sect. 430, p. 255, sect 434), we can derive the following calculation based on Ptolemy's rulership durations (see MystNumrs p. 227):
4 Nabopolassar (= 21 years - 17th year for the year he defeated the Assyrian forces)
+ 43 Nebuchadnezzar
+ 2 Amel-Marduk
+ 4 Nergal-shar-usur
+ 17 Nabonidus
= 70 Total years of servitude to Babylon
From yet another approach, the Assyrian eponym canon and Ptolemy cannon agree where they overlap; both provide a correlation of eclipses to dates and rulers (see chapter 4 of MystNumrs). Furthermore, Ptolmey's eclipse dates make references to the aforementioned Babylonian rulers by year, month and day. Thus, these dates are consistent with the chronology discussed herein. Finally, these eclipse dates have also been verified by calculations done on a computer a few years ago by computer scientists (members of the A.C.M. involved in a hot dispute) trying to prove/disprove the accuracy of Ptolemy's cannon.