Rectify the Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel timeline dilemma

[luigi]

In Daniel 1:1, King Nebuchadnezzar lays siege and takes Jerusalem. After returning to Babylon with captives, Nebuchadnezzar orders his chief steward of the eunuchs' to gather certain of the children of Israel from the kings seed and of its princes (Daniel 1:3). These children were to have no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, who would then be taught the Chaldean language over the course of three years, at which time they would then be brought before the king (Daniel 1:4-5). At the end of three years four Israeli children are brought in before king Nebuchadnezzar. The king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king (Daniel 1:19).
In the next chapter, Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign dreamed dreams (Daniel 2:1). Daniel with the revealing from the Lord then provides the king with the details of the dream that left him, and Nebuchadnezzar then falls down in front of Daniel and gives him gifts and office in his kingdom (Daniel 2:19-49).
Here now is the dilemma; How does Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign meet with Daniel whom he met after Daniel's three year internship, along with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?

[Diaste]

Chapter 2 does not say this was in Daniel's 3rd year. 

It looks like Daniel had not been promoted yet and in fact returned to his house to commune with his friends. The guards had to search for Daniel clearly this was before his promotion.

Ch 2 said Daniel sat in the gate of the king. Why would the guards have to search for him if he already stood before the king in ch 1?

But I don't see where the internship ended in ch 2. 

And I don't see where it was the full 3 years in ch 1.

"At the end of the days the king said...." is not specifying the full term nor does it have to be the same as " so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king"

It could be construed that is was the full three years but right now I can't see it.

And we also know Nebby wasn't the most patient guy. He was going to kill all the wise men because they could not not tell him his own dream, which he forgot. So maybe Nebby said, "Bring them in next week, I want to talk to them." He found them special and allowed them to be in the court before the end of the three years; while continuing their studies and living away from the palace. This is why Daniel could approach the king to ask for time.

I don't know for sure but there are many questions.

 

[Charlie744]

Wow, a lot of great comments being presented so far!

Assuming I have not missed it within anyone’s earlier comments, would anyone want to offer their opinion or thoughts on why God had Daniel write this in his first chapter?

I am sure everyone agrees that not even one jot is written in the Scriptures that does not have a purpose- there are no “fillers” or unimportant words or comments in the Scriptures just to fill in the space between important verses!

So what are these two time sequences tell us or how might they help us reveal mysteries or still unexplained verses in Daniel?

 Thank you, Charlie 

[Charlie744]

42 minutes ago, Da Puppers said:

What two time sequences are you referring to?

Be Blessed

The PuP 

Sorry... why or what was the purpose for Daniel mentioning the two different times- Daniel 1:4 v 2:1.. thanks, Charlie 

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

Just take God's word for what it says.  Ashpenaz, [and not Melzar]the prince of the eunuchs [brought them in at the end of the days that the king had commanded to undergo: 

Dan 1:18 KJV Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.

And here is that appointment that was given to Ashpenaz, and not Melzar: 

Dan 1:3 KJV And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

Dan 1:5 KJV And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

It was Ashpenaz that brought them before the king at the end of three years.   Melzar was personally responsible (in a limited fashion)  for only Daniel and the three Hebrew children.   It was at the end of days that the king had appointed. 

 

13 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

Let me resummarize what I stated in the previous post. 

1. Daniel was brought to Babylon in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim that began in the first Or 2nd month (Around April) of 605 BC and ended at that same time in 604 BC. 

By Nebuchadnezzar, presumably in his first year as king.

13 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

2.  Nebuchadnezzar didn't become king until the 5th month of 604 BC.  This was in the 4th year of Jehoiakim as Jeremiah 25 states. 

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it." Cannot ignore this.

I don't see it as one or the other. Both the first year of Nebby and the 3rd and 4th year of Jehoiakim can overlap. It would the only way to resolve the conflict. One is not more true than the other.

Seems Nabopolassor died in 605, not sure what month. 

13 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

3.  Jeremiah 25, it was given under the following time constraints:  The 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadrezzar and it was (into) the 23rd year since the 13th year of Josiah.   As I have shown, the period from,  the 5th month of 604 BC and the 1st month of 603 BC,  when Jehoiakim's 4th year ended,  satisfies the 23rd year of Jeremiah,  preaching unto deaf ears.  

4. Nabopolassor,  was still the king at the time of Daniel 1:1.

Of Babylon? "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it."

13 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

5.  The 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar began in the 5th month of 603 BC and ended one year later in 602 BC .

6. The three years can be satisfied by Daniel going to Babylon before the 5th month in 605 BC and they were fulfilled/ completed the kings appointment that ended Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year at the 5th month of 602 BC, (sometime in the 1st five months of 602 BC).

I don't know for sure about the exact times. I also don't think Daniel is a diary. It was written after the events. Maybe not, but it seems so. It's possible that Daniel and friends were brought to Babylon before Nebuchadnezzar became king. Then as events are written about after the fact, when Nebuchadnezzar is king, the honorific is recorded as that is the present condition.

It appears Nebuchadnezzar was crown prince by 607, in effect the king. Daniel and friends could have been brought to Babylon by the crown prince and when the story is written it's well into the reign of Nebuchadnezzar as king.

It's also interesting to me that Nebuchadnezzar is only mentioned twice in Dan 1. The second time here:

"Now at the end of the time specified by the king, the chief official presented them to Nebuchadnezzar." This does not say Nebuchadnezzar specified the time. It could be the case, but it's not clear. So everything that was to happen to Daniel and friends could have been SOP as it's for sure this would not have been the first time people were brought into Babylon from conquered nations to be trained.

There is a great deal of info in the narrative, but also a lot we don't know as the focus is on Daniel and friends. 

[Charlie744]

10 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

I suppose you mean verse 5:

Dan 1:5 KJV And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years,

(The three years? )

I assume that is what you mean.  With this information,  (the beginning and end of this 3 year period), I have been able to narrow down the time frame of when the vessels of the house of the Lord went to Babylon and began the 70 years of desolation for Jerusalem.   According to Jeremiah: 

Jer 25:18 KJV To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day;

The 70 years desolation had already began,  for he said,  "...a desolation... as it IS this day".  This day would be the date of this prophecy being given; it was already desolate in the 4th year of Jehoiakim.   This points back to when Nebuchadrezzar carried the vessels to Babylon.   I think this is when the golden ark of the covenant was removed,  making Jerusalem desolate at that point.  

By knowing when they ended (3 years later IN the 2nd year), we are able to pinpoint a narrow timetable of when this happened.   The starting point correlates to being in Jehoiakim's 3rd year.   And the ending point (3 years later)  correlates to the end of Nebu's 2nd year.   This would correlate to what month constituted the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign (1st or 2nd month)  and would have to end before Nebuchadrezzar would have begun his 3rd year of reign,  ala the 8th day of the 5th month.   I have since researched lunar cycles in 607 BC and  have concluded that there was no embolism (13th) month during the interim time that Jehoahaz reigned for three months.   This would mean that Jehoiakim began to reign in the 2nd month of that year.   This narrows down the time of Daniel's captivity to the 2nd, 3rd,  or 4th months, up until the 1st week of the 5th month.   

Let me now shift gears to when their servitude to the king of Babylon ended.   It is historically presented (by scholars,  not me) that Cyrus took Babylon in October/November of 539 BC (the 8th month).  And that he issued his decree to the Jews, permitting then to return (with the temple vessels)  in the very early part of 538 BC (in Cyrus' 1st year,  Ezra 1).  But I haven't found a specific date for that,  but probably in the 10th-12th months (Dec-March) timetable.   This leaves us with only an estimate for the 67th year of desolation,  which began in (May - August 605 BC)  and ended in (Oct, 539 - Mar, 538 BC).   That results in an estimated length of desolation of 66 years & 2 - 10 months.   I lean towards using the DECREE of Cyrus (rather than when he took the city)  as to when the desolation was put on hold.   But it doesn't help much for being more specific. 

These unfulfilled 3 years and a few months are what I believe will be fulfilled in the last half of Daniel's 70th week.  This is also,  IMHO, part of the role of Babylon in the book of revelation.  It will be rebuilt for the sake of God's promise to avenge Israel of her.   These 3 plus unfulfilled years of Babylon,  (imo) will be fulfilled by her re-emergence as a prominent role player in endtime events.   This is why sudden destruction will come upon the whole world,  until its too late to do anything about it.

A couple of fascinating tidbits that I have found concerns the liberation and decree of Cyrus.   It came:

1.  490 years [70 sevens]  after David made Jerusalem to be the capital [in 1039/1038 BC] 

2. 49 years [7 sevens] after Nebuchadnezzar began his seige of Jerusalem on the 10th of Tevet, the 10th month of the 9th year of the reign of Zedekiah, [approximately January 1 of 587 BC.  (587 minus 538 BC =49 years).]

This is why I think the decree of Cyrus is very important to understanding the 70 week prophecy. 

Be Blessed 

The PuP 

Once again my apologies! Right below is a cut/paste of Luigi's post requesting thoughts on the "dilemma" between the second year of Nebs. reign and the fact that Daniel has already been in captivity for 3 years.  Why would God have Daniel include this is his book? He could have easily not mentioned this "timing dilemma"  -so what is His purpose for drawing this to our attention?  

Thank you, Charlie

Here now is the dilemma; How does Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign meet with Daniel whom he met after Daniel's three year internship, along with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?

 

[Scott Free]

On 1/10/2021 at 10:44 AM, luigi said:

In Daniel 1:1, King Nebuchadnezzar lays siege and takes Jerusalem. After returning to Babylon with captives, Nebuchadnezzar orders his chief steward of the eunuchs' to gather certain of the children of Israel from the kings seed and of its princes (Daniel 1:3). These children were to have no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, who would then be taught the Chaldean language over the course of three years, at which time they would then be brought before the king (Daniel 1:4-5). At the end of three years four Israeli children are brought in before king Nebuchadnezzar. The king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king (Daniel 1:19).
In the next chapter, Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign dreamed dreams (Daniel 2:1). Daniel with the revealing from the Lord then provides the king with the details of the dream that left him, and Nebuchadnezzar then falls down in front of Daniel and gives him gifts and office in his kingdom (Daniel 2:19-49).
Here now is the dilemma; How does Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign meet with Daniel whom he met after Daniel's three year internship, along with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?

The conflict arises from an omission of data. The different emphasis on events suggest they where written independently and latter archived together. The scriptures are not an exhaustive cohesive analysis of events. The information is very selective. The first account is written dry, official and matter-of-fact not involving the personal business of the king.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Scott Free

[Scott Free]

On 1/10/2021 at 10:44 AM, luigi said:

In Daniel 1:1, King Nebuchadnezzar lays siege and takes Jerusalem. After returning to Babylon with captives, Nebuchadnezzar orders his chief steward of the eunuchs' to gather certain of the children of Israel from the kings seed and of its princes (Daniel 1:3). These children were to have no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, who would then be taught the Chaldean language over the course of three years, at which time they would then be brought before the king (Daniel 1:4-5). At the end of three years four Israeli children are brought in before king Nebuchadnezzar. The king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king (Daniel 1:19).
In the next chapter, Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign dreamed dreams (Daniel 2:1). Daniel with the revealing from the Lord then provides the king with the details of the dream that left him, and Nebuchadnezzar then falls down in front of Daniel and gives him gifts and office in his kingdom (Daniel 2:19-49).
Here now is the dilemma; How does Nebuchadnezzar in his second year of reign meet with Daniel whom he met after Daniel's three year internship, along with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?

That is right the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah was in 606 B.C. The second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar was in 603. A 3 year separation of the events. We all make mistakes trying to figure things out. You are headed in the right direction keep it up. 

[Scott Free]

14 minutes ago, Da Puppers said:

The third year began in 605 BC,  not 606.  Josiah's 31st year began 18 years after 626 BC,  aka 608 BC,  and died in the 11th month,  February,  607 BC.   Jehoiakim's first year began in May of that same year.   His 2nd year began in May 606 BC.  And his 3rd began in May 605 BC. 

Be Blessed 

The PuP 

Thank you for clarifying that. 

[luigi]

21 hours ago, Scott Free said:

The conflict arises from an omission of data. The different emphasis on events suggest they where written independently and latter archived together. The scriptures are not an exhaustive cohesive analysis of events. The information is very selective. The first account is written dry, official and matter-of-fact not involving the personal business of the king.

If it were as you claim, one would then not be able to trust anything written in the bible.