Posts by thirdwitness

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

thirdwitness

Yes and sorry I got them backward. Arioch is the name which means lion-like.

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

Leo says: Since Arioch is dispatched with the duty of "executing the sages of Babylon" (2:14), percisely what the term itself conveys, Arioch is probably construed here as "chief executioner" and not "chief of the bodyguards," and thus not identical to Nebuzaradan.

Thanks for clearing that up. So it is clear that they did not hold the same office as one was chief executioner and the other was chief of the bodyguard.

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

By the way, this discussion has continued here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118142/1.ashx

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

thirdwitness

I believe the large letters above should be allowed to stand. It demonstrates the mindset of those who cannot overcome reason and serves as a testimony to all the lengths that some posters will display to hide truth. In short,

If you can't overcome the logic of the person then attack the person.

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

thirdwitness

Concerning the counting of Jehoiakim's kingship as a vassal king to Babylon we have Bible proof of this being done in another situation.

Another example of counting from vassal kingships

There is another place where the Bible counts the years of a King as starting from the beginning of their vassal Kingship.

King Pekah of Israel reigned 20 years before he died. Three years before his death, in his 17th year, the neighboring nation of Judah gained a new King, Ahaz. Logically, therefore, when Pekah of Israel died after his 20 years of service, his successor must have been crowned during the 4th year of neighboring Ahaz, right?

This is correct. Israel’s next King was enthroned in the 4th year of Judah’s Ahaz. The new King’s name was Hoshea. It describes how he ascended the throne, he “formed a conspiracy against Pekah ... and struck him and put him to death; and he [Hoshea] began to reign in place of him.” –2 Kings 15:30

Yet, there is something wrong. The next chapter of the book gives a different date for the start of Hoshea’s reign – in 2 Kings 17:1 it doesn’t say he came to the throne after killing Pekah during the 4th year of Ahaz, but during the 12th year of Ahaz! “In the twelfth year of Ahaz the king of Judah” Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel”. Is this a contradiction?

The answer is simple. 2 Kings 17:3 answers, “It was against him [Hoshea] that Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came up, and Hoshea came to be his servant and began to pay tribute to him.”

Yes, when 2 Kings 17:1 says “In the twelfth year of Ahaz the king of Judah” that Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel”, it is counting from the start of Hoshea’s vassal Kingship to Assyria – not from the time several years earlier when he “formed a conspiracy against Pekah ... and struck him and put him to death; and he began to reign in place of him.”

So here we have another example of the dates of a King's reign starting from the beginning of their vassal Kingship, with years prior to it being left out. This is similar to how Daniel counted the years of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1.

Go back | Appendix menu

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

thirdwitness

Jeffro, your arguments are easily shown to be inconsistent and we have already done this. Here it is.

Daniel's gross inconsistency?

To get around the problems caused to their theories by the book of Daniel, some 587 promoters have come up with an extremely complex way of “explaining” the problems. It causes Daniel's book to suffer from gross inconsistency, for those who believe in 587 anyway.

Daniel 1:5 says, “Furthermore, to them [Daniel and his friends] the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years , that at the end of these they might stand before the king .”

That may seem straightforward, but no – for self-proclaimed “chronologists” are on hand to tell you what it actually means.

They claim Daniel's so-called “three years” of training was actually somewhere between one year, two months and two years, two months. That way, they can say Daniel was brought to Babylon in the artificial exile they have invented (which Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and others all forgot to mention), can finish his training, be brought before the King, and become known as one of the wise men of Babylon – all in time to interpret the dream before Neb's 2nd year ends.

How? By claiming that Daniel's training is counted in the manner of a Jewish King, but linked to the years of Neb's kingship, but counted in the manner of a Babylonian king.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge

Neb began his reign in August 605; Daniel began his training in February 604, and just two months later in April, he has completed 1 year of training. But it's only been two months, why? Because it is reasoned that Neb's first year as king (after his accession year) begins in April 604, and therefore so does Daniel's second year of training. When April 603 arrives Daniel has completed 2 years of training (even though it has only been 1 year and two months). Neb now starts his 2nd year in Spring, 603. It is during this 2nd year that Daniel will complete his training and interpret Neb's dream and become district ruler. So, even if Daniel interprets the dream on the very last day of Neb's 2nd year, Daniel's 3 years of training would at the very most be 2 years and 2 months, or as little as 1 year 2 months. Confused? –See our charts to see how this looks on a time-line

Keep in mind that the Babylonians do not count the accession year as the first year. Only Jewish Kings were known to be counted in that way. So we must assume that for some odd reason, when Daniel penned the words “three years... at the end of”, he was using the years of Neb's reign to count the years of his training, but in the manner that the years of Jewish kings are counted. Oh, and this is after doing the opposite four verses earlier (in Daniel 1:1) where he counts Jehoiakim's reign in the manner the Babylonians use.

Do you really think all of this is what Daniel was thinking when he said, “the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king”? Or do you rather think it is an example of someone with an agenda going to extremely complicated lengths to strain out of the scriptures what they want it to say? Besides, using such logic, if today was December 31st, and you asked me a question, I could say “I will answer you at the end of two years”, and then answer you the very next day on January 1st.

I was unable to find a single Bible translation that agrees with such an idea in this part of Daniel.

Holman Christian Standard Bible: They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to serve in the king's court.

New American Standard: “...and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king's personal service.

King James Version: “...so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”

New Living Translation: “They were to be trained for a three-year period, and then some of them would be made his advisers in the royal court.”

God's Word: “They were to be trained for three years. After that, they were to serve the king.”

Young's Literal: “...so as to nourish them three years, that at the end thereof they may stand before the king.”

If the “explanation” offered is correct, then this scripture should imply that the training was to end in Nebuchadnezzar's third year (if counted in the manner of a Jewish king) – but it doesn't. All translations are quite clear. When something happens “at the end” of three years, that is three years later. It's really simple.

As we mentioned in the main article, Daniel uses the word “‘lemiktzat’ for describing the end in time period of something. Interestingly, this word is derived from word ‘ketz’ which means end to something or someone. To claim that three years are not actually three years is like to claim ten days are not actually ten days.”

Furthermore, this explanation causes such weird inconsistency on Daniel's part. First Daniel uses the Babylonian method of counting years for the Jewish King, then four verses later the Jewish method for counting the years of the Babylonian King, then reverts back to the Babylonian method again a few verses after that for counting the years of Neb once more.

Scripture	587's “explanation”
Daniel 1:1, “in the third year of Jehoiakim”	Babylonian method of counting years – ascension months not counted
Daniel 1:5 “end of “ three years	Jewish method of counting years – ascension months are counted as a year
Daniel 2:1, “in the second year of Neb”	Babylonian method – ascension months not counted

Why such inconsistency? Because it's the only way 587-promoters can cling on to their theories. In other words, they want to treat Daniel's training as if it were a king's reign! And they want to count his “accession year” in training, as one year. Who ever heard of such a thing? However, they do not want to count Neb's accession year as one year, and they do not want to count Jehoiakim's accession year as one year. That is the only way their dates fit. Yet the 607 interpretation does not have this inconsistency.

That's not the only inconsistency they create in the book of Daniel. When Daniel 10:1 says in the “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”, 587-promoters revert back to the 607 method of dating. See the chart below:

Scripture	587 interpretation	607 interpretation
Daniel 1:1 – “the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah”	Jehoiakim's Kingship of Judah	Babylonian Kingship over Jews
Daniel 2:1 – “the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar”	Neb's Kingship of Babylon	Babylonian Kingship over Jews
Daniel 10:1 – “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”	Babylonian/Persian Kingship over Jews	Babylonian/Persian Kingship over Jews

In other words, they want to count Jehoiakim's kingship from the start of his reign, and the same with Nebuchadnezzar, but they do not want to do the same with Cyrus.

By placing the events of Daniel 10 in the “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”, Daniel demonstrates that all of his time keeping must refer to the Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. Otherwise, if 587-promoters were consistent in their methods of counting, they would have to insist that Daniel was actually serving under the King of Persia many years earlier during the third year of Cyrus. Obviously that is impossible. So the only way for them to avoid this problem is to make Daniel's methods of dating inconsistent – a second time.

If the 587-promoters abandon this theory, and go back to saying Daniel interpreted the dream during his 2nd year of training – before the three full years ended, they simply swap one set of inconsistencies for another. As covered in the main article, that theory makes the story appear silly, and breaks the chronology of the narrative. So if you are a 587 promoter, you have a choice – either defend one set of inconsistencies, or defend another set instead. It's just a matter of deciding which is your personal favorite. Promoters of 607, on the other hand, have no such headaches because that interpretation is consistent throughout the book of Daniel.

This is often the case with the “explanations” of how 587 supposedly fits with the Bible. When the inevitable fatal problems are pointed out, defenders of 587 conjure up ever more lengthy and complicated “explanations”, to patch-up the problems caused by the last set of “explanations”. Which is followed by explanations of the explanations. What one eventually has is a great patchwork of interpretation and explanation many pages long. No doubt at this moment someone, somewhere, is cooking up more lengthy, complex and highly strained patchwork to “explain” the problems with their theory that we've pointed out here.

However, the simple 607 chronology keeps both Daniel's dating methods and the narrative consistent throughout the book. We don't need to explain away any inconsistency – because there is none. All we need to explain is that Daniel uses the same method of counting years throughout his book – that of Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. Just as he does the same thing with the Persian Kingship over the Jews in Daniel 10. This 607-based interpretation also harmonizes with dates of the first exile given in other Bible books such as Jeremiah, which in turn harmonizes with the prophecies of the 70 years for Jerusalem, Tyre, and the 40 for Egypt. The 587 interpretation on the other hand, is disharmonious with all of this.

Go back | Appendix menu

124

thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

by AuldSoul in

thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars, .

firstly, i offer this disclaimer: i am not a scholar.

but i can add and subtract.

thirdwitness

If the wildly fictional story known as HIllah stele is really true it is not speculation at all to say when the temple in Harran was destroyed. It was destroyed as you say in 609. But 609 according to the chronology the Bible gives is not the 16th year of Nabo but rather about the 16th/17th year of Neb. It is really that simple although you refuse to see that because you deny what the Bible clearly says about the 70 year desolation of Judah, 40 year desolation of Egypt, 70 years of Tyre, and other bible proof. The reason you deny these is because you put secular chronology interpretations above the Bible.

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

thirdwitness

First let me answer the Nebuzaradan/Arioch question.

There could be a number of explanations for this apparent discrepancy. As we have already shown 607 is the only date that will work with Bible prophecies and chronology. And we have shown that Daniel's 3 year training period could not have been completed until after Neb's 2nd year of actual rule over Babylon. In fact, we have shown that Daniel was not even in Babylon at all during the 2nd year of Neb's actual rule over Babylon.

It is possible that Nebuzaradan was also known as Arioch and is merely the same person. Since Daniel 2 is written in Aramaic whereas the other scriptures concerning Nebuzaradan are written in Hebrew it is possible that Arioch is his name in Aramaic. Since Jewish tradition holds that Nebuzaradan means 'roars like a lion' because of the lionlike manner in which he treated the Jews it is possible that he received this name as a result of his treatment toward the Jews but Daniel simply chose to use his name given to him at birth.

There are many examples in the Bible of persons being called by two different names. For example, in the book of Daniel at chapter 4 it reads in verse 18, “‘This was the dream that I myself, King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar, beheld; and you yourself, O Bel·te·shaz´zar , say what the interpretation is, forasmuch as all the [other] wise men of my kingdom are unable to make known to me the interpretation itself. But you are competent, because the spirit of holy gods is in you.’"

Who is this Belteshazzar? Wasn't it Daniel that interpreted Neb's dream? If the Bible had not provided us with further information some may have claimed this to be a contradiction. But of course we know as the Bible says at Daniel 1:7 that the principal court official 'assigned to Daniel [the name of] Bel·te·shaz´zar'. The same is true of his 3 Hebrew companions. They also had their Hebrew name and were assigned Babylonian names. So it would not be surprising if this was also done in the case of Arioch or Nebuzaradan. Perhaps he was of another nation and an addition to his birth name he was given a Babylonian name.

Another possible explanation is that there were more than one chief of the bodyguard. Since Nebuzaradan was often absent from Babylon because of the military service he performed on the battle front, it is likely that there was also a chief of the bodyguard to handle the duties back home in Babylon as well. That chief was known as Arioch. The proof that there were two separate and distinct positions may be found in the fact that Arioch is called 'chief of the king's bodyguard' whereas Nebuzaradan is merely called 'chief of the bodyguard'.

91

Daniel's 3 year training and the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

by thirdwitness in

the previous 607 thread was locked down where the 587 defenders could not overcome the clear reasoning of the bible about the 40 year desolation of egypt.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx

but before it was locked down norm brought up a lot of points.

thirdwitness

Who is this god known as Carl Jonsson that you put so much faith in?

124

thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

by AuldSoul in

thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars, .

firstly, i offer this disclaimer: i am not a scholar.

but i can add and subtract.

thirdwitness

AlanF: So according to these ancient, contemporary sources, in the 16th year of Nabopolassar the city of Harran and its people were desolated, and the temple Ehulhul was ruined, even destroyed.

And by the way, you have just done what you accused me of doing. Combining two different inscriptions to form one. And yours is a blatant deceitful error. The Sipar Cylinder does not state that it was in the 16th year of Nabopolasser. By combining two different sources you attempt to deceive. It has not gone unoticed by JW lurkers.