Scholar, please don't post and run...

by in a new york bethel minute 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

scholar

Jeffro
Daniel refers to the time of his deportation to Babylon 'in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship' this is the only time marker that we have. This could not be the 'third year ' of Jehoiakim's reign because at that time he was subject not to Babylon but to Egypt. So, logically that 'third year ' can only refer to another three period in the course of the eleven year reign of Jehoiakim.
The Bible, Josephus and the secular records indicate that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his eigth year and the Bible shows that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah including Daniel at that time. This proves that the final three years of rebellion and vassalage which resulted in the death of Jehoiakim occurred in the final years of Jehoiakim's reign,
. Therefore, Daniel.s 'third year' of kingship refers to that latter period of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer which harmonized all of the historical facts.
Your theory of harmonizing the data based on a acc.non/acc year conflicts with the histoiricalk facts because it reverses history by placing the death of Jehoiakim at the beginning of his reign and so too with afictitious first deportation in Neb's unknown year.
scholar JW
Narkissos

It suddenly occurred to me that the title of this thread could be read another way.
Jeffro

Daniel refers to the time of his deportation to Babylon 'in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship' this is the only time marker that we have. This could not be the 'third year ' of Jehoiakim's reign because at that time he was subject not to Babylon but to Egypt. So, logically that 'third year ' can only refer to another three period in the course of the eleven year reign of Jehoiakim.

You call that logic? Where does Daniel 1:1 say that Jehoiakim was not subject to Egypt? Do you really think Nebuchadnezzar, soon to take the Babylonian throne and with conquest in his veins, would say "hmmm... Egypt's in control here... better not take these Jewish chaps." You are using about as much logic as "If she weighs the same as a duck... then she's made of wood... and therefore... a witch!"
The Bible, Josephus and the secular records indicate that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in his eigth year and the Bible shows that Nebuchadnezzer took captives from Judah including Daniel at that time. This proves that the final three years of rebellion and vassalage which resulted in the death of Jehoiakim occurred in the final years of Jehoiakim's reign,
Where does the bible show that Daniel was taken in the Jehoiakim's 8th year? Stating that 3=8 is not proof.
. Therefore, Daniel.s 'third year' of kingship refers to that latter period of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer which harmonized all of the historical facts.
Of course your relying on your very weak definition of 'kingship' again, which has no basis in scripture, but aside from that, you already know that my model fits the relevant facts anyway.
Your theory of harmonizing the data based on a acc.non/acc year conflicts with the histoiricalk facts because it reverses history by placing the death of Jehoiakim at the beginning of his reign and so too with afictitious first deportation in Neb's unknown year.
I'm not sure how you arrive at placing Jehoiakim's death at the beginning of his reign. It seems that you think Jehoiakim's third year must by necessity also be his third-last year. Perhaps you have an even more limited understanding than I thought. We know from historical records, as previously indicated on this forum, that booty was indeed taken by Nebuchadnezzar from Jerusalem on his return to Babylon, during which same year he acceded the throne (hence, his accession year). We also know that booty by definition can include people taken as slaves. The only fiction is your suggestion that Jehoiakim continued to rule as a ghost but I'm not sure how you arrived at that.
Jeffro

It suddenly occurred to me that the title of this thread could be read another way.
Indeed. If only he'd take it that way!
scholar

Jeffro
Logic and Scripture clearly indicate that right up to Jehoiakim's fourth year he was a vassal to Egypt and it was only in his fourth year that he became subject to Nebuchadnezzer. In Jehoiakim's third regnal year, Nebuchadnezzer was a mere Crown Prince and not the King of Babylon. Therefore the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship was the time when he was dethroned by Neb and died leaving the throne to Jehoiachin.It was at this time Nebuchadnezzer deported captives to Babylon and this is confirmed by Josephus.
Kingship is not a weak word as you imply because leading refernce works devote much space to this subject rather than the word 'reign' so you need to read up on the significance of Hebrew kingship. Your so-called model is old hat and is simply an attempt to sidestep the Scriptures in preference to a secular-based chronology. It is the mark of a higher critic.
No we have no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took booty from Judea in either his acc year or his first regnal year as you claim. The Bible nowhere supports this nonsense and Josephus clearly indicates that Judea was excluded from Neb's early forays into the provinces.
Your claim that Jehoiakim's third year when Neb took captives to Babylon reverses the historical situation because that was the time of his death so you are placing his death at the time of his earliest period of reign. This is twisted logic at best and a perversion of biblical history. The facts clearly indicate that Daniel 1:1 are correctly placed at the end of Jehoiakim's reign or his 11 th year or his third year of kingship.
The only ghost that exists is your false chronology, false dates and false history.
scholar JW
steve2

Jeffro and scholar you both have this much in common:
Persistence in the face of failing to convince the other.
I suspect you both are now more convinced of your particular positions than when you began this debate. Observers can but admire the depth of your respective knowledge on the topic and hope the embattled minutiae doesn't detract from the spirit of your differing belief systems.
Jeffro

Logic and Scripture clearly indicate that right up to Jehoiakim's fourth year he was a vassal to Egypt and it was only in his fourth year that he became subject to Nebuchadnezzer.

What you say here is true, but you choose to ignore that Daniel's reckoning (using the Babylonian accession-year system) of Jehoiakim's third year is his fourth regnal year by Jeremiah's reckoning, and his subjection to Nebuchadnezzar was marked by the taking of booty from Jerusalem before but in the same year as Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the Babylonian throne.
In Jehoiakim's third regnal year, Nebuchadnezzer was a mere Crown Prince and not the King of Babylon.
That Nebuchadnezzar was Crown Prince when Daniel was taken does not present any problem. Belshazzar was also only a Crown Prince in 539BC, but he is referred to as King in the bible, in keeping with Babylonian custom. Additionally, Nebuchadnezzar did become king in the year Daniel was taken once he had returned to Babylon.
Therefore the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship was the time when he was dethroned by Neb and died leaving the throne to Jehoiachin.It was at this time Nebuchadnezzer deported captives to Babylon and this is confirmed by Josephus.
Daniel 1:2 says that "part of the utensils of the house of the true god" were taken by Nebuchadnezzar at that time. However 2 Kings 24:13 says that " he brought out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house". The two scriptures are obviously describing different events.
Kingship is not a weak word as you imply because leading refernce works devote much space to this subject rather than the word 'reign' so you need to read up on the significance of Hebrew kingship.
The fact is that a Hebrew reader at the time would have no reason to infer that anything other than Jehoiakim's third year, according to the regnal system used by the author, was intended. You have never provided any source material to back up your suggestion that 'kingship' implies a subset of a reign starting from anything other than its normal beginning. Additionally, you have not responded to the repeated requests of Alleymom(?) to indicate how a similar use of the Hebrew word is indicated anywhere else in the bible.
Your so-called model is old hat and is simply an attempt to sidestep the Scriptures in preference to a secular-based chronology. It is the mark of a higher critic.
("so-called model"? Even if my model was wrong, it would still be a 'model' in the relevant context, so I'm not sure how "so-called" is appropriate.) Your statement that my model is "old hat" even though I arrived at it without collusion with other sources only endorses its veracity. When I read "third year", I don't try to twist its starting point to another time without basis to suit preconceived ideas as the Society does.
No we have no evidence that Nebuchadnezzer took booty from Judea in either his acc year or his first regnal year as you claim. The Bible nowhere supports this nonsense and Josephus clearly indicates that Judea was excluded from Neb's early forays into the provinces.
Berossus indicates that booty was taken at this time in agreement with Daniel. (Josephus got his information about the period from Berossus, so if Berossus' history is not reliable, than neither is Josephus'.) The bible agrees that part of the temple treasures were taken at this time, and the rest were taken at the siege in 597.
Your claim that Jehoiakim's third year when Neb took captives to Babylon reverses the historical situation because that was the time of his death so you are placing his death at the time of his earliest period of reign. This is twisted logic at best and a perversion of biblical history. The facts clearly indicate that Daniel 1:1 are correctly placed at the end of Jehoiakim's reign or his 11 th year or his third year of kingship.
There is simply no evidence in the bible that the third year referred to in Daniel 1:1 has anything to do with time of Jehoiakim's death.
(I hope you have a better understanding of AS4631 than you do about the 70 years. At least if my hunch is correct anyway.)
Jeffro

'Scholar' has continued to vehemently reject that Nebuchadnezzar took captives in his accession year.
The following paragraph from Insight (volume 2, page 480, "Nebuchadnezzar") is of interest:
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and "in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1) Also, in the fourth year Nebuchadnezzar led his forces to Egypt, and in the ensuing conflict both sides sustained heavy losses.
This paragraph identifies that in his accession year, Nebuchadnezzar took "a vast booty" from Hattu to Babylon. (Hattu of course being Syro-Palestine.) There is certainly nothing here to suggest that captives were not taken from Judah in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. The next paragraph from Insight again mentions Hattu as including Judah, describing the siege against Jerusalem in 597 (617 according to the Society).
A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon."
The Society, though usually very clear on identifying geographical locations, never gives any direct indication of where Hattu was. Why is this? It is because Jerusalem was in Hattu, and this supports the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact take booty in his accession year, as supported by Daniel 1:1.
This is also in agreement with Josephus, in Against Apion, Book 1, chapter 19:
"When Nabolassar, father of Nabuchodonosor, heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and over the parts of Celesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer; but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel: Nabuchodonosor joined battle with him, and conquered him, and reduced the country under his dominion again. Now it so fell out that his father Nabolassar fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. But as he understood, in a little time, that his father Nabolassar was dead, he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and Phoenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor, with the rest of his baggage, to Babylonia; while he went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon; whither, when he was come, he found the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal person among them had preserved the kingdom for him."
Josephus was here quoting Berossus, and in chapter 21, indicates his agreement with Berossus saying, "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books;". Thus Josephus indicates that he agreed that captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.
The Society's "Let Your Kingdom Come" Appendix states that Judea was excepted from being conquered in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, but they fail to admit why. It certainly was not because Jerusalem was enjoying God's favour. More likely they were not conquered specifically because Jehoiakim allowed Nebuchadnezzar to take booty and captives.
scholar

Jeffro
Reply to post 532
1. You give a quotation from the Insight volume regarding Nebuchadnezzer's forays into Hattu but the evidence does not show that he took captives from Judea, part of Hattu in his acc or first regnal year. In fact, Josephus excludes Judea from that earliest foray into Hattu during the fourth year of Jehoiakim and when Neb became king. I refer you to Antiquities Of The Jews, Book10, Chapter 6 where this geographical location, Judea is exempted from that invasion. Also, the cunieform evidence does not state the precise nature of the booty in either of his acc year nor in his 1st regnal year. So, your evidence for such a claim is completely missing and further the Bible says nothing about Neb taking captives in that year.
Further , for your information Carl Jonsson in his GTR, 3rd edn, 1998, p.205 provides a fine map of Judah and the surrounding nations which clearly shows Hattu..
2. You next quote Josephus in Against Apion, Book 1, 19 wherein Josephus quotes Berossus' abbreviated account of Neb's reign. You claim that the statement "the captives he had taken from the Jews' means that Neb took Jewish captives or that he took captives from Judea. Your interpretation conflicts with Josephus' own account of history which differs from Berossus on this point if in fact that is what Berossus means. His statement can be read in different ways but those captives are not said toi be Jewish captives but captives belonging to Jews who were living outside of Judea.
3. You raise the matter as to Why Jewish captives were not taken in Neb's acc year, the reason being omitted in the Kindom publication. The simple answer to this question is that it wasnot God's time for this specific judgement to occur. Jehovah used Jeremiah to foretell when these judgements would occur and their manner of occurrence for Judah and its kings had a long history of a broken covenant relationship and during this time Jehovah allowed various forms of discipline to befall his people. For example, a key event when Jehoiakim became a vassal to Egypt and followed by domination to the next power Babylon. There were a long series of episodes that befell the Judean monarchy which eventually led to their complete removal in 607.
scholar JW
DaCheech

I guess we will settle this argument when Armagheddon does not come to be!!!
and scholar is rotting in his grave disillusioned

Scholar, please don't post and run...

Share this