JW: Why does the Watchtower tell you that Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE?

Question

Please, only Jehovah's Witness' answers.

The Watchtower tells you that Jerusalem fell to Babylon in 607 BCE. This began the start of the Gentile Times, and therefore produces the date - through some argument - of 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times.

However, all archaeological evidence and over 10,000 identified Cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia (found in the 1950s) all put the date of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in 587 BCE, a full 20 years later. In fact, no scholar today would ever put the date of 607 BCE on the fall of Jerusalem when it is so certain that it could not have been this date.

Is it not true that C.T.Russell initially forgot to consider that there is no year number "0" and the 1914 date originally started with the year of the fall as 606 BCE? Only when C.T.Russell's mistake was realized, they "adjusted" the date of the fall to 607 BCE.

Why has the Watchtower gone to such great lengths to squash the understanding that the 607 BCE date is proven inaccurate?

[Samuel Crow - re:Jerusalem never fell to Babylon]

"Now on the seventh day of the fifth month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire." - 2 Kings 29:8-5

Actually, it did - literally. I'm talking about the literal fall of Babylon which the Watchtower purports to have happened in 607 BCE. In actuality, it happened in 587 BCE.

The physical city of Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in the Old Testament (a historic fact), and the Watchtower uses this as a pivotal point in prophecy - only, they get the date wrong.

[walterprognosticus - re: Long Post]

So, basically, to summarize, the Watchtower's answer to the discrepancy is this.

'It's 607 BCE because we - and our interpretation of the Bible - are right and all of the rest of the world, including the most notable archeologists, museums, the writing of the people who lived during the time, and even the Jews themselves are wrong."

Bear in mind that the Watchtower did not originally believe 607 BCE to be the date but 606 BCE. They changed their story. Did that mean that the Biblical prophecies changed? Or the timelines the Bible lays out changed? No, their mind changed.

If you do a Google search on "587 BCE" you will be presented with article after article regarding the fall of Jerusalem. If you do a Google search on "607 BCE" you will be presented with article after article of Watchtower doctrines. What does that tell you about the claims they make in your answer?

[oatesmokid - re: Calculations]

I think you missed the point of the question. I already know how the Gentile Times are calculated - but the result is only 1914 if you use the incorrect date for the fall of Jerusalem posted by the Watchtower. If you use the Correct date of 587 BCE, you get 1934 - a year that nothing really notable happened.

[achtung_heiss - re:Trust the Bible]

While I agree that we should trust the Bible, you are not trusting what the Bible says but what the Watchtower says. The Watchtower has actually published documents about this date even when they -knew- that the information was inaccurate.

Providing the 587 BC date isn't an attempt to discredit JWs, it's an attempt to put an accurate date into the history books!

If the Watchtower appears discredited by historical accuracy, then there is a problem here.

Answer 1

Nearly every archaeologist concedes a date within twenty years of 607 BCE for Israel's conquering by Babylon. Since the date was more than 2500 years ago, that's less than a 1% difference.


As diligent bible students, Jehovah's Witnesses note that the bible contains several prophecies that hinge upon the year of Israel's fall, and most of the ones that relate to 607 BCE were actually fulfilled in bible times. Since they accept the historicity, inspiration, and infallibility of the bible, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the true date must allow ALL these prophecies to be fulfilled accurately. The year 607 BCE does that, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the year is entirely within the scope indicated by the available archaeological evidence.

There is a substantial presentation of the evidence here:
http://jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20060715/article_02.htm

Answer 2

The reasons that the Watchtower gives for accepting 607 have to do with the fact that they agree with historians on 539 B.C.E. as the date for the fall of Babylon; and allowing two years for the eventual release and return of the Jews to Jerusalem, the Watchtower simply counts back 70 years from 537 to arrive at 607.

So, their reasoning is that since the Scriptures say that Jerusalem would lay desolate for 70 years; and from the date 586 to 537 is only 49 years, the Watchtower goes with 607.

Answer 3

Did you even read what walterprog gave to you. Did you look up the scriptures, did you pray for guidance before you took mans words instead of what the bible states. The bible says make the truth your own. It does not say, just listen to what a man says about something and take as face value. Mankind makes many mistakes, look at king David yet God made David King. The Truth is there no matter how you want to spin it. Take a look at the information. It will take more then 20 min. or even a week to read and look up and meditate on what was laid out to you. Give the information at least a little consideration. Where are you looking for your answer to the question? Mankind or Gods and if you say I trust Gods words Why did you not take more time and read the scriptures stated in Walters answer to your question. Do the math yourself and make sure you don't add the zero year.

Why did you not use scripture with your secular argument. It would have added more weight to this question.

That being said, very interesting question, thanks for asking it.

Answer 4

997-607 B.C.E. Jeroboam's rebellion split nation into two ,and jerusalem was left as the capital of two kingdoms of ten tribes,Benjamin and judah ,under Solmon's son Rehoboam. Levites and priests also moved to the city where Jehovah's name rested,there by strenghtening Rehoboams kingship.[2Ch 11:1-17] Jerusalem was now no longer at the geographic center of the kingdom,Being only a few miles from the border of hostile northern ten tribe kingdom. Within five years of Solomon,s death , the city experienced the first of a number of invasions.King Shishak of egypt attacked the Kingdom of Judah,viewing it as vulnerable in it's reduced state. Because of national unfaithfulness, he suceeded in entering Jerusalem, carrying off temple treasures and other valuables .Only because of repentance was a measure of devine protection granted , preventing actual ruin to the city.-
KI 14:25,26: 2 Ch 12:2-12.the chronology for fulfillment of phrophecy
Dan.4:1-17 verses 20 -37 show that this prophecy had a fulfillment upon nebuchadnezzar. But it also has a larger fulfillment . How do we know that? verses 3 and 17 show that the dream the God gave to King Nebuchadnezzar deals with the Kingdom of God and Gods promise to give it "to the one whom he wants to"...even the lowliest one of mankind". The entire Bible shows that Jehovah's purpose is for his own son " Jesus Christ" ,to rule as His representative over mankind. [Ps 2:1-8: Dan. 7:13,14 :1 Cor .15:23-25:Rev.11:15: 12 :10] When the counting of the seven times started After Zedekiah, the last king in the Typical Kingdom of God , was removed from the throne in Jerusalem by the Babylonians.[ezk.21:25-27] Finally .by early Oct of 607 B.C.E. the last of Jewish Sovereignty was gone .By that time the Jewish Governor ,who had been left in charge by the Babylonians ,had been assinated , and the remaining jews had fled to Egypt.[Jer.chap.40-43] Reliable chronology indicates that this took place 70 years before 537B.C.E.., the year in which the Jews returned from captivity :that is it took place by early Oct of 607 B.C.E.[Jer 29:10: Dan:9:2:]
The bible shows that in calulating phophetic time a , a day is counted as a year . How many "days " then ,are involved/ 42 months [3 1/2 years] in that [rev11:2,3:]prophecy are counted as 1,260 days .Seven years would be twice that , or 2520 days.Applying a day for a year rule would result in 2,520 years.

CALUCATING THE "SEVEN TIMES"

Seven times =7x 360 = 2,520 years
Bible time or year =12 x 30 =360 [Rev 11:2,3: 12:6,14]

Early Oct, 607 B.C.E. , to Dec 31, 607 B.C.E. = 1/4 year
Jan. 1 606 B.C.E., to dec 31,1B.C.E. = 606yrs
Jan 1 C.E., to DEC31,1913= 1,913yrs
Jan 1,1914, to early Oct,1914 = 3/4 year
the total being 2,520 years

Answer 5

Jerusalem will never fall to Babylon, and never did.

Revelation 18: 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.....

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Answer 6

If you truly want to know the answer, here it is. This topic cannot be put "in a nutshell" style of answer...so it is lengthy...
-----------------------------

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses accept 607 B.C.E. as the
date for Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians,
instead of 587/6 B.C.E.?

Simply put, Jehovah's Witnesses accept the detailed
testimony of the Bible, the inspired Word of God, over
the present understanding of secular history.
"Christians who believe the Bible have time and again
found that its words stand the test of much criticism
and have been proved accurate and reliable. They
recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be
used as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history
and views."—"Let Your Kingdom Come," p. 187.

Concerning the date of Jerusalem's destruction, many
scholars claim to be concerned about harmonizing their
views with the Bible, but in fact, are more concerned
with not contradicting secular chronology. On the
other hand, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
have paid "more than the usual attention" to detail,
and they have arrived at the only conclusion that they
conscientiously can. (Hebrews 2:1) Their methodology
involves adhering to the Bible in its entirety and not
compromising on issues that might seem insignificant
to secular historians. To do otherwise would make them
guilty of distorting Jehovah's intended message.

So, how do Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at 607 B.C.E. as
the year for Jerusalem's destruction by the
Babylonians?

While most historians base their date for the
destruction of Jerusalem on an independent line of
secular evidence, Jehovah's Witnesses base theirs on a
Biblically-foretold seventy-year period of servitude
to Babylon for Judah:


"The word that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning
all the people of Judah and concerning all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . all this land must
become a devastated place, an object of astonishment,
and these nations will have to serve the king of
Babylon seventy years."—Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11.


Eighteen years after this prophecy occurred to
Jeremiah, the priest and copyist Ezra describes the
events that followed the destruction of Jerusalem, in
the nineteenth year (or eighteenth regnal year) of
Nebuchadnezzar:


"Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the
sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants
to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began
to reign; to fulfill Jehovah's word by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths.
All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to
fulfill seventy years."—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21.


Jehovah's Witnesses unequivocally believe that the
correct understanding of these, and related verses, is
that the seventy years of servitude followed the
destruction of Jerusalem, for it was at this time that
Judah became "a devastated place, an object of
astonishment." At 2 Kings 25:25, 26, the Bible reports
that by the seventh month even those left behind, "all
the people, from small to great," fled to Egypt,
leaving the land completely desolate, "without an
inhabitant." As this factor was necessary for
fulfillment (Isaiah 6:11, 12; Jeremiah 4:23, 25; 4:27,
29; 6:7, 8; 9:11; 24:8, 10), Jehovah's Witnesses
recognize that the seventy years of desolation could
not officially begin to be counted until after the
first of the seventh Jewish month.

Ezra 1:1 shows that it was "in the first year of
Cyrus, the king of Persia," or 538/7 B.C.E., that
Cyrus issued the decree releasing the Jews from
captivity. The Bible notes that the Jews arrived back
in their homeland by the seventh month, Tishri, which
would be September 29-30, 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 3:1-3).
From this date, Jehovah's Witnesses count back seventy
years to 607 B.C.E. as the year for Jerusalem's
destruction. Thus, the "devastations of Jerusalem,
[namely], seventy years," spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, were exactly seventy years in duration,
running from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the
seventh month of 537 B.C.E.

However, the current picture of Neo-Babylonian
history, as accepted by the vast majority of scholars,
does not allow for a seventy-year interval between the
destruction of Jerusalem (which they place in 587/6
B.C.E.) and the reoccupation of the land of Judah two
years after the Persian conquest of Babylon (which
both secular historians and Jehovah's Witnesses agree
occurred in 539 B.C.E.).

Where exactly these seventy years fit in the stream of
time is not easily ascertained by those who subscribe
to this widely-held chronological framework.
Testifying to this, Encyclopedia Britannica relates:


"Many scholars cite 597 BC as the date of the first
deportation, for in that year King Jehoiachin was
deposed and apparently sent into exile with his
family, his court, and thousands of workers. Others
say the first deportation followed the destruction of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586; if so, the Jews
were held in Babylonian captivity for 48 years. Among
those who accept a tradition (Jeremiah 29:10) that the
exile lasted 70 years, some choose the dates 608 to
538, others 586 to c. 516 (the year when the rebuilt
Temple was dedicated inJerusalem)."—Encyclopedia
Britannica (1990 edition, Volume 1, p. 771).


Clearly, there is much diversity of opinion among
Bible scholars as to which period of seventy years the
Biblical prophets were referring to. Upon closer
examination, one soon becomes aware that it is a
subject far more complex than it first appears.
However, coming to an accurate knowledge of what
actually transpired is essential to understanding
important Biblical prophecies that affect us today.

To underscore the uncertainty that surrounds this
issue, a brief summary of the most widely-held
positions follows:

There are those who advance the theory that the
seventy years ran from 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E.,
relating only to the period of Babylonian world rule
following the conquest of Assyria. Others prefer to
believe that the seventy years ran from 589 B.C.E. to
519 B.C.E., beginning with the final two-year siege
against Jerusalem. Still others believe that the
prophecy concerned the seventy years between 587/6
B.C.E. and 516 B.C.E., that is, from the destruction
of Jerusalem to the completion of the reconstructed
temple. And, there are even some who regard the
seventy years as just an approximate or round number,
somewhere in the vicinity of 67 years (from 605 B.C.E.
to 538 B.C.E.), believing that the servitude and
devastation began in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.

The proponents of each of these "solutions" insist
that their point of view is the correct one, both in
light of secular history and Biblical corroboration.
(Incidentally, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses often
draw support from all available theories when making
their argument. It is apparent that these ones are not
interested in the truth of the matter; their only goal
lies in attacking the beliefs held by Jehovah's
Witnesses.)

With such diversity of opinion over what in fact
transpired, does it seem reasonable that Jehovah's
Witnesses should be singled out for scrutiny? And
which, if any, of the proposed "solutions" is the
correct one?

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that each of the
above theories appears, at least in part, to be
supported by the Scriptures and secular history.
Nevertheless, there can only be one correct solution.

Upon weighing all the Biblical evidence, Jehovah's
Witnesses have taken a very definite stand on the
matter, rejecting all of the aforementioned theories,
and holding to the view that the seventy years ran
from 607 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E.:


"The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application
of the 70-year period to any time other than that
between the desolation of Judah, accompanying
Jerusalem's destruction, and the return of the Jewish
exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus' decree.
It clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years
of devastation of the land of Judah. The prophet
Daniel so understood the prophecy, for he states: "I
myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of
the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had
occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the
devastations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years." (Da
9:2) After describing the conquest of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 states:
"Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the
sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants
to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began
to reign; to fulfill Jehovah's word by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths.
All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to
fulfill seventy years.""—Insight on the Scriptures,
Volume 1, p. 463.

"The closing verses of Second Chronicles (36:17-23)
give conclusive proof of the fulfillment of Jeremiah
25:12 and, in addition, show that a full 70 years must
be counted from the complete desolation of the land to
the restoration of Jehovah's worship at Jerusalem in
537 B.C.E. This desolation therefore begins in 607
B.C.E.—Jer. 29:10; 2 Ki. 25:1-26; Ezra 3:1-6."—All
Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, p.84.


It is this clear and concise Bible-based view that
Jehovah's Witnesses hold, and have held since the days
of Charles Taze Russell who, in The Time Is At Hand
(Studies in the Scriptures, Series 2, 1912 edition),
p. 52, comments:


"Usher dates the seventy years desolation eighteen
years earlier than shown above—i.e., before the
dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah's last king—because
the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at
that time. (2 Chron. 36:9, 10, 17, 21; 2 Kings
24:8-16.) He evidently makes the not uncommon mistake
of regarding those seventy years as the period of
captivity, whereas the Lord expressly declares them to
be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the
land should lie "desolate, without an inhabitant."
Such was not the case prior to Zedekiah's
dethronement. (2 Kings 24:14.) But the desolation
which followed Zedekiah's overthrow was complete; for,
though some of the poor of the land were left to be
vine-dressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12), shortly
even these—"all people, both small and great"—fled to
Egypt for fear of the Chaldees. (Verse 26.) There can
be no doubt here; and therefore in reckoning the time
to the desolation of the land, all periods up to the
close of Zedekiah's reign should be counted in, as we
have done."


There is no shortage of critics who openly voice their
opinion that the Watchtower Society has dogmatically
stuck to a doctrine for which they have had to go to
extreme lengths to make appear credible,
notwithstanding the fact that the Watchtower Society
has provided ample documentation to support their
viewpoint (see "Additional Reading" at the end of this
article). Unfortunately, included among these are some
who allowed themselves to be stumbled to the point of
abandoning the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses. For those
with such tendencies, the Society provides the
following admonition:


"If you find that you are stumbled or are offended
about something being taught in God's organization, or
some adjustments being made, keep this in mind: God
has put enough in the Bible to provide a complete
foundation for faith. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) He has also
left many details of various events in the Bible out
of the account, enough so that one whose heart is not
right, who wants to discover an apparent fault, who
wants to find an excuse for leaving the way of truth,
can find it."—The Watchtower, August 15, 1972, p. 507.


Nevertheless, some critics have endeavored to
"reconcile" the Biblical account with the current
secular understanding of Neo-Babylonian history,
alleging that the Watchtower Society is simply
misinterpreting the relevant Biblical material. A
close examination of the facts, however, reveals the
"solutions" proposed by these critics to be feeble,
inaccurate, and ignorant of clear statements made in
God's Word. Their error lies in not heeding the
counsel at Proverbs 3:5: "Trust in Jehovah with all
your heart and do not lean upon your own
understanding." These ones have put more faith in the
"knowledge" of men than in the unfailing Word of
Jehovah, evidently not considering the counsel of the
prophet Isaiah:


"This is what Jehovah has said . . . "I, Jehovah, am
. . . the One that turns even their knowledge into
foolishness; the One making the word of his servant
come true, and the One that carries out completely the
counsel of his own messengers."—Isaiah 44:24-28.


It is our sincere hope that the information presented
in the in-depth articles that follow will help all to
see that Jehovah's Witnesses are not mistaken in their
point of view, nor are they guilty of resorting to
"scriptural acrobatics" in order to substantiate their
claims. Rather, they should be commended for refusing
to invalidate the Word of God by favoring the
traditional historical views put forward by imperfect
man. (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13) It is because of their
unwavering faith in God's Word that Jehovah has
provided them with insight:


"Jehovah's Witnesses have been interested in the
findings of archaeologists as these relate to the
Bible. However, where the interpretation of these
findings conflicts with clear statements in the Bible,
we accept with confidence what the Holy Scriptures
say, whether on matters related to chronology or any
other topic. . . . For the same reason, they have
realized that the prophecy in Daniel chapter 4
regarding the "seven times" began counting in 607-606
B.C.E. and that it pinpointed 1914 C.E. in the autumn
as the year when Christ was enthroned in heaven as
ruling King and this world entered its time of the
end. But they would not have discerned these thrilling
fulfillments of prophecy if they had wavered in their
confidence in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, the insight that they have shown has been
directly associated with their reliance on God's
Word."—The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, p. 22.


If you are under the impression that critics have
presented information that seriously challenges that
presented by the Watchtower Society, you owe it to
yourself to examine all of the facts carefully. These
facts will not go away if you choose to ignore them.
If you truly believe that the Bible is the unerring,
inspired Word of God, and you are sincerely interested
in knowing the truth of this matter from a Biblical
perspective, please consider the following detailed
questions and answers.


In-Depth

1. When does the Bible indicate that the nation of
Judah began serving the king of Babylon?


2. Is it possible that the "devastations of
Jerusalem," as spoken of at Daniel 9:2, began several
years prior to its destruction, perhaps commencing
with the initial exile?


3. Is it not true that Jeremiah 25:18 indicates that
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah had already become
"a devastated place, an object of astonishment" by the
fourth year of Jehoiakim, the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar?


4. Ezekiel 33:24, 27 refers to those in "devastated
places." Is it true that these words were "written ten
years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem," and does
this indicate that "the devastations of Jerusalem"
(Daniel 9:2) did not entail seventy years of complete
desolation of the land, "without an inhabitant"?


5. Critics allege that the New World Translation is
biased in its translation of Jeremiah 29:10. Is this
true?


6. Is it true that 2 Chronicles 36:21 doesn't really
say that Jerusalem laid desolate for seventy years?


7. Do the words at Zechariah 1:7, 12 indicate that by
519 B.C.E. the seventy years of desolation had not yet
been fulfilled? If so, might this suggest that the
seventy-year period began in or around 589 B.C.E.?


8. Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C.E., but the
Jewish captives did not return to their homeland until
537 B.C.E. Therefore, how could it be said that the
Jews served "the king of Babylon" for seventy years if
the king of Babylon was conquered two years earlier?


9. In what manner did Jehovah "call to account against
the king of Babylon and . . . against the land of the
Chaldeans . . . their error" mentioned at Jeremiah
25:12?


10. The book "Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand"
(published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society)
states in the footnote on p. 105 that "research made
it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E." Critics
allege that there was no such "research" and that
there is "no evidence whatsoever for this new date."
Is this true?


11. Are Jehovah's Witnesses guilty of twisting the
scriptures found at Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 to
support their fundamental teaching regarding 1914?


12. Is it not true that 587/6 B.C.E. is every bit as
reliable as 539 B.C.E., and therefore, could it not
equally be used as a pivotal date?



Additional Reading

* Appendix to Chapter 14 ("Let Your Kingdom Come," pp.
186-9)
* When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? (Awake!, May 8,
1972, pp. 27-8)
* Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable? (The
Watchtower, February 1, 1969, pp. 88-92)
* From 607 B.C.E. to return from exile (Insight on the
Scriptures, Volume 1, p.463)
* Jehovah, Enforcer of Prophecy (The Watchtower,
December 1, 1964, p.463)
* Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time (The
Watchtower, March 15, 1969)
* Exiles Return From Babylon (Insight on the
Scriptures, Volume 2, p.332)
--------------------------------------------------------

When does the Bible indicate that the nation of Judah
began serving the king of Babylon?

In Jeremiah chapter 25, we are told of the eventuality
that was to befall the inhabitants of Judah: "The word
that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning all the
people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem . . . all this land must become a devastated
place, an object of astonishment, and these nations
will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
(Jeremiah 1a, 2, 11)

Critics have attempted to show that this servitude to
the king of Babylon, mentioned in verse 11, began to
be fulfilled long before Jerusalem's destruction. Some
of them reason that the nation of Judah began serving
the king of Babylon when they became a vassal to
Babylon, while others believe that it commenced with
the initial exile.

Is there anything wrong with these views? Isn't it
quite reasonable to conclude that Judah's servitude to
Babylon commenced when they became a vassal to
Babylon?

Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Jehoiakim
became a tributary king to Babylon in his eighth year:


"But when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four
years, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim's government
over the Hebrews, the king of Babylon made an
expedition with mighty forces against the Jews, and
required tribute of Jehoiakim"—Antiquities of the
Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verse 1.


Josephus' testimony is consistent with the Biblical
record, which shows that Jehoiakim became a tributary
king to Nebuchadnezzar for a period of three years,
after which he rebelled, resulting in his being given
into "the hand of Nebuchadnezzar" in Jehoiakim's
eleventh year. Secular chronologists place Jehoiakim's
eighth regnal year in 601/600 B.C.E. (see Handbook of
Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, Princeton, 1964, p.
203), thus accounting for an interval of only
sixty-two to sixty-four, and not seventy, years.

Similarly, the first recorded exile occurred ten years
prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and would
therefore account for only fifty-eight years according
to accepted secular chronology. Because of this, some
have tried to advance the theory that an earlier exile
occurred in the third year of Jehoiakim (due to a
misunderstanding of Daniel 1:1), despite the fact that
this too comes up short, allowingfor, at most,
anywhere from sixty-six to sixty-eight years. (See
Appendix to Chapter 14, "Let Your Kingdom Come," pp.
186-9 for further details.) Nevertheless, any such
exile prior to that which occurred at the time of
Jerusalem's destruction, when "Judah went into exile
from off its soil" (2 Kings 25:8-21), would involve
only the servitude of the specific individuals taken
captive, and not the nation of Judah.

Clearly, neither Judah's vassalage nor the initial
exile satisfy a full seventy years of servitude for
the nation of Judah to Babylon. In light of this, is
it possible that the seventy years of servitude simply
referred to the subservient position that other
nations would occupy during the period of Babylonian
world domination (from 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E.,
according to secular chronology)?

No, for the Bible clearly shows that the seventy years
were to be years of devastation for Jerusalem and the
cities of Judah (Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11; Daniel 9:2).
While some critics argue that Jeremiah 25:11 only
refers to seventy years of servitude, Daniel 9:2
confirms that the prophecy also entailed seventy years
of devastation for the land of Judah. Second
Chronicles 36:20, 21 further shows that it was the
composite effect of exiling the remaining ones who
"came to be servants to [Nebuchadnezzar]" and the
resulting devastation and desolation of the land of
Judah that began to fulfill the prophecy concerning
the seventy years. In no way did Babylon's dominant
position alone satisfy these requirements.

Furthermore, Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 show that
"Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah" had not
yet been accomplished by the first regnal year of
Cyrus, that is, after Babylon had already fallen to
the Persians:


"And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,
that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might
be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus
the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass
through all his realm."—Ezra 1:1 (see also 2
Chronicles 36:22).


This verse establishes that the Persian conquest of
Babylon was not the determining factor in fulfilling
Jeremiah's prophecy, disproving the theory that the
seventy years simply referred to the period of
Babylonian world domination.

How, then, are we to understand Jeremiah 27:6 which,
in the New World Translation and numerous other
translations, seems to indicate that at the "beginning
of the kingdom of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 27:1) Jehovah
had already made the nations and the wild beasts
servants to Nebuchadnezzar?


"And now I myself have given all these lands into the
hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my
servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have
given him to serve him."—Jeremiah 27:6, New World
Translation (compare with NIV, which reads: "Now I
will hand all your countries over to my servant
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the
wild animals subject to him.")


While Jeremiah 27:6 shows that "these nations" had
been made subject to Nebuchadnezzar by divine
authority, nevertheless, Jeremiah 28:14 shows that
even by the time of the "kingdom of Zedekiah"
(Jeremiah 28:1), some eleven years later, the actual
servitude was still seen as a future event:


"For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of
Israel, has said: "A yoke of iron I will put upon the
neck of all these nations, to serve Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon; and they must serve him. And even the
wild beasts of the field I will give him.""


The nations that were "given into [Nebuchadnezzar's]
hand" were given a choice of either willingly
submitting, or alternatively, being brought under
subjection forcibly. (Jeremiah 27:12-14) However,
until such time that this occurred, it could not
rightly be said that they were serving the king of
Babylon.

As a case in point, all creation is subject to its
Creator, Jehovah. However, one who claims to be
serving Jehovah is not actually serving him if he is
not doing according to His will. Thus, at Jeremiah
27:11, Jehovah could rightly extend favor toward any
nation that would bring their necks "under the yoke of
the king of Babylon and actually serve him."

Even in the minds of the false prophets of Zedekiah's
day, it was clear that the inhabitants of Judah were
not yet bound by servitude to Babylon:


"And as for you men, do not listen to your prophets
and to your practicers of divination and to your
dreamers and to your practicers of magic and to your
sorcerers, who are saying to you: "You men will not
serve the king of Babylon." . . . Even to Zedekiah the
king of Judah I spoke according to all these words,
saying: "Bring your necks under the yoke of the king
of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on
living. Why should you yourself and your people die by
the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence
according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation
that does not serve the king of Babylon? And do not
listen to the words of the prophets that are saying to
you men,'You will not serve the king of Babylon,'
because falsehood is what they are prophesying to
you."—Jeremiah 27:9, 10, 12-14.


So, how exactly was Zedekiah to bring his neck "under
the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him"? The
answer is found at Jeremiah 38:17, 18:


"Jeremiah now said to Zedekiah: "This is what Jehovah,
the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, 'If
you will without fail go out to the princes of the
king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep
living and this city itself will not be burned with
fire, and you yourself and your household will
certainly keep living. But if you will not go out to
the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must
also be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they
will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will
not escape out of their hand.'"—Jeremiah 38:17, 18.


Jeremiah 15:2 explains what this voluntary "going out"
would require:


And it must occur that should they say to you, 'Where
shall we go out to?' you must also say to them, 'This
is what Jehovah has said: . . . whoever is for the
captivity, to the captivity!"'—Jeremiah 15:2.


As long as Jehoiakim, and later, Zedekiah, refused to
"go out to the princes of the king of Babylon," the
nation of Judah could not be said to be serving the
king of Babylon. Furthermore, Jeremiah 1:1-3 tells us
that the prophetic warnings continued right down to
the "eleventh year of Zedekiah . . . until Jerusalem
went into exile in the fifth month."

A prophecy recorded 900 years earlier makes it clear
that Jehovah's intention from the start was that the
nation of Judah would be absent from their homeland
during the prophesied period of servitude, whether
they chose to submit peaceably or had to be removed
forcibly:


"'At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all
the days of its lying desolated, while you are in the
land of your enemies. At that time the land will keep
sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. All the days
of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the
reason that it did not keep sabbath during your
sabbaths when you were dwelling upon it."—Leviticus
26:34.



Conclusion

Jeremiah 25:11 outlines the events comprising the
prophecy of the seventy years: "And [1] all this land
must become a devastated place, an object of
astonishment and [2] these nations will have to serve
the king of Babylon seventy years." This verse makes
it clear that the seventy years of Judah's servitude
as a nation were to begin at the time of, or
immediately following, the devastation of Jerusalem,
but not before. The servitude and the devastation of
the land were to last seventy years, which is
precisely why Daniel could accurately refer to "the
devastations of Jerusalem, [namely], seventy years."
(Daniel 9:2)

In the next article, it is shown that the devastation
of the land could not have occurred prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem, and in line with this,
neither could the servitude. It is also demonstrated
that Jeremiah's prophecy had not yet begun to be
fulfilled by the "fourth year of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah
25:1), since Jeremiah 25:11 indicates that the land
would become a devastated place, indicating a future
fulfillment. Thus, Judah's servitude to Babylon was
also reserved for future fulfillment, and for a
certainty then, did not begin in Jehoiakim's third
year, as suggested by some. (See also Jeremiah 36:9,
29 which indicates that Nebuchadnezzar had not yet
come up against Jerusalem even by the fifth year of
Jehoiakim.)

Despite the initial exile of "Jeconiah [Jehoiachin]
the son of Jehoiakim . . . together with all the
nobles of Judah and Jerusalem" (Jeremiah 27:20) some
ten years earlier, Jeremiah evidently realized that it
was not until the "eleventh year of Zedekiah" that
"Jerusalem went into exile." This is strongly
corroborated by the testimony at 2 Kings 25:8, 21,
which shows that the nation of Judah did not go "into
exile from off itssoil" until after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple in the nineteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar:


"And in . . . the nineteenth year of King
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon . . . he proceeded
to burn the house of Jehovah and the king's house and
all the houses of Jerusalem; and the house of every
great man he burned with fire. And the walls of
Jerusalem, all around, the entire military force of
Chaldeans that were with the chief of the bodyguard
pulled down. And the rest of the people that were left
behind in the city and the deserters that had gone
over to the king of Babylon and the rest of the crowd
Nebuzaradan the chief of the bodyguard took into
exile. . . . Thus Judah went into exile from off its
soil."—2 Kings 25:8-21.


Second Chronicles 36:19-21 adds:


"And he [Nebuchadnezzar] proceeded to burn the house
of the [true] God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem;
and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and
also its desirable articles, so as to cause ruin.
Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the
sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants
to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began
to reign; to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths.
All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to
fulfill seventy years."


It wasn't until the last of the inhabitants of Judah
"came to be servants to him" that the nation of Judah
could be said to be serving the king of Babylon. This
same verse proves beyond a doubt that the inhabitants
of Judah were not serving the king of Babylon prior to
his nineteenth year, since it was only after they were
taken captive that they "came to be servants to him."
And, as the above-quoted verse establishes, it was
also at this time that the desolation of the land
commenced.

H.W.F. Saggs, in his book The Greatness That Was
Babylon, helps put things in perspective, showing that
prior to Jerusalem's destruction Judah was only
indirectly subject to Babylon:


"After . . . the deportation of the young king
Jehoiachin along with his nobles, Nebuchadrezzar
attempted indirect rule, using Zedekiah as a vassal
prince bound to Babylonia: for nine years the
experiment was successful. Even after the siege and
capture of Jerusalem consequent on Zedekiah's ultimate
yielding to the pro-Egyptian party, Nebuchadnezzar
still did not abandon the attempt to employ some form
of indirect rule, and appointed a Jewish nobleman,
Gedaliah, as governor. It was only after Gedaliah's
assassination by Jewish patriots . . . that Judah came
under direct Babylonian administration."—The Greatness
That Was Babylon, H.W.F. Saggs, 1962, p. 261.


Yes, the Bible is very clear as to when the
seventy-year period of servitude commenced. It could
not have begun until the crown of Zedekiah was
removed, completely abolishing the Judean kingship
with "no one sitting on the throne of David."
(Jeremiah 36:30) Following the removal of Zedekiah's
crown, and after those remaining (who were under the
governorship of Gedaliah) fled for fear of the
Chaldeans (2 Kings 25:22-26) in the seventh month, the
entire nation of Judah fell under direct servitude to
the king of Babylon, no longer possessing its own king
as intermediary, as had previously been the case with
Judah's tributary submission to Babylon (and to other
nations prior to this).
--------------------------------------------------------


Is it possible that the "devastations of Jerusalem,"
as spoken of at Daniel 9:2, began several years prior
to its destruction, perhaps commencing with the
initial exile?

At Daniel 9:2 we read: "In the first year of Darius
the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had
been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; in
the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel,
discerned by the books the number of the years
concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to
Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations
of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."

The Hebrew word translated "devastations" at Daniel
9:2 is chorbâh. Please note that Daniel refers to "the
word of Jehovah [that] had occurred to Jeremiah." This
is more or less a direct reference to Jeremiah 25:11,
where the same Hebrew word is used:


"And all this land must become a devastated place, an
object of astonishment, and these nations will have to
serve the king of Babylon seventy years."


It is important that we identify exactly when the
devastation of Jerusalem took place if we are to
correctly understand the prophecy concerning the
seventy years.

In order to understand what Daniel meant by the
"devastations of Jerusalem," we need to understand
what Jeremiah meant by the land becoming "a devastated
place." Additionally, we must comprehend the extent or
magnitude of devastation that the Hebrew word chorbâh
signifies.

At this point, one thing is certain. Since the
prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 "occurred to Jeremiah . . .
in the fourth year of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 25:1), we
know for a fact that the devastation of Jerusalem did
not begin with the supposed siege and captivity that
critics place in Jehoiakim's third regnal year, due to
a misunderstanding of Daniel 1:1. Why? Because the
words, "all this land must become a devastated place,"
stated at Jeremiah 25:11, show that the devastation
was to be a future event. This is confirmed at
Jeremiah 26:9, which states that "this very city will
be devastated."

Furthermore, scholars who accept present-day secular
chronology cannot suggest that the seventy years of
devastation (Daniel 9:2) commenced with the first
Biblically-recorded exile, which occurred in the
seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:28), since
this would account for a total, by their reckoning, of
just under sixty years.

The English word devastate, the noun form of which is
used at Daniel 9:2 and the adjective form at Jeremiah
25:11, is defined as: "to lay waste; ravage"
(Webster's) or, "to lay waste; destroy" (American
Heritage). We have already seen that the Hebrew word
used in both of these instances is chorbâh.

Some critics have gone as far as to state that this
word does not imply complete destruction, so as to
suggest that the "devastation" began prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem. However, the Hebrew and
Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament by Dr. James
Strong (1890), defines chorbâh as:

"a place laid waste, ruin, waste, desolation."

Similarly, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford, 1959), defines chorbâh as:

"waste, desolation, ruin."

Thus, the meaning of chorbâh is closely related to the
Hebrew word shâmêm, translated at 2 Chronicles 36:21
as "desolated." In fact, it is so closely related,
that although the New World Bible Translation
Committee opted to translate chorbâh as "devastations"
(likely to preserve the subtle shade of difference
between the two Hebrew words), other Bibles have
translated chorbâh at Daniel 9:2 as follows:


"in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood
from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD
given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of
Jerusalem would last seventy years."—Daniel 9:2, New
International Version.

"in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, have
understood by books the number of the years, (in that
a word of Jehovah hath been unto Jeremiah the
prophet,) concerning the fulfilling of the wastes of
Jerusalem—seventy years."—Daniel 9:2, Young's Literal
Translation.


Now, please note how the following Bibles translate
chorbâh where it appears at Jeremiah 25:11:


"And this whole land shall be a desolation"—American
Standard Version (1901)

"All this land will be a waste"—Bible in Basic English
(1965)

"And this whole land shall be a waste"—Green's Literal
Translation (1993)

"This whole country will become a desolate
wasteland"—New International Version (1984)

"And this whole land shall be a desolation"—New King
James Version (1984)

"This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste"—New
Revised Standard Version (1989)


We are beginning to get a sense of the magnitude of
the devastation that was to befall Judah. But does
Jeremiah anywhere specifically qualify what this
devastation would entail? Jeremiah 26:9 answers:


"Why is it that you have prophesied in the name of
Jehovah, saying, 'Like that in Shiloh is how this
house will become, and this very city will be
devastated so as to be without an
inhabitant'?"—Jeremiah 26:9.


To what extent would Jerusalem be devastated? The
Scriptures reveal that the city would be devastated so
as to be without an inhabitant.

Throughout the book of Jeremiah, the prophet
continually and consistently confirms what he had in
mind when he wrote Jeremiah 25:11:


"Be corrected, O Jerusalem, that my soul may not turn
away disgusted from you; that I may not set you as a
desolate waste, a land not inhabited."—Jeremiah 6:7-8.



"And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones, the lair
of jackals; and the cities of Judah I shall make a
desolate waste, without an inhabitant."—Jeremiah 9:11.



"I saw the land, and, look! [it was] empty and waste;
and into the heavens, and their light was no more.
. . . I saw, and, look! there was not an earthling
man, and the flying creatures of the heavens had all
fled."—Jeremiah 4:23, 25.



"For this is what Jehovah has said: "A desolate waste
is what the whole land will become, and shall I not
carry out a sheer extermination? . . . Every city is
left, and there is no man dwelling in them."—Jeremiah
4:27, 29b.

"So I shall give Zedekiah the king of Judah and his
princes and the remnant of Jerusalem who are remaining
over in this land and those who are dwelling in the
land of Egypt. . . . And I will send against them the
sword, the famine and the pestilence, until they come
to their finish off the ground that I gave to them and
to their forefathers."'"—Jeremiah 24:8, 10.


Furthermore, the extent of devastation, recorded at 2
Chronicles 36:19-21 as resulting from the destruction
of Jerusalem, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah over
120 years in advance:


"Until the cities actually crash in ruins, to be
without an inhabitant, and the houses be without
earthling man, and the ground itself is ruined into a
desolation; and Jehovah actually removes earthling men
far away, and the deserted condition does become very
extensive in the midst of the land."—Isaiah 6:11, 12.


It goes without saying that Judah was not made a
"desolate wasteland" (NIV) or a "ruin and a waste"
(NRSV), "without an inhabitant," at any point prior to
the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, can it honestly be
said that Jerusalem was devastated as a result of the
initial exile?

Specifically referring to that event, historian Max I.
Dimont provides the answer:


"Nebuchadnezzar took the eighteen-year-old King
Jehoiachin into captivity and deported 8,000 of the
country's leading citizens—all who might possibly
foment another uprising. He did not sack Jerusalem at
this time, or devastate the country."—Jews, God and
History, 1962, p. 58.


In speaking to the "Jews that were dwelling in the
land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 44:1) who fled there
following the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah
establishes the matter beyond all doubt:


"'You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I
have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities
of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this
day, and in them there is no inhabitant. . . . So my
rage, and my anger, was poured out and it burned in
the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem;
and they came to be a devastated place, a desolate
waste, as at this day.'"—Jeremiah 44:2, 6.


The above verses show that Jeremiah's prophecy that
"this land must become a devastated place" (Jeremiah
25:11) began to be fulfilled after the destruction of
Jerusalem, and that it encompassed the complete
desolation of the land. Daniel 9:2 confirms that this
"desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."
(Daniel 9:2, NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------

Is it not true that Jeremiah 25:18 indicates that
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah had already become
"a devastated place, an object of astonishment" by the
fourth year of Jehoiakim, the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar?

No, this is nothing more than a misconception held by
some critics.

Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 17, 18 reads as follows:


"The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the
people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that is, the first
year of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon; which
Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people
of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, saying . . . And I proceeded to take the
cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the
nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: namely,
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her
princes, to make them a devastated place, an object of
astonishment, something to whistle at and a
malediction, just as at this day."—Jeremiah 25:17-18.


Certain individuals have misapplied the words "just as
at this day" as an indication that Judah was already
considered a devastated place by the fourth year of
Jehoiakim. However, Jeremiah is here writing about the
prophecy that occurred to him in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim. In no way does this imply that Jeremiah
chapter 25 is being written in this year. Rather, it
is a narration of the events that took place in that
year. In Bible translations that include quotation
marks where appropriate (e.g. NWT, NIV, RSV, By,
NKJV), one will notice that the verses that follow
verse 2 are enclosed in quotation marks. It will also
be noted that verses 17 to 23 of Jeremiah chapter 25,
which contain the words in question, are not enclosed
in quotation marks, as are the majority of verses in
chapter 25. This is because verses 17 and 18 are part
of the narrative written after Judah had been laid
desolate.

Thus, the words "just as at this day" refer to the
time when Jeremiah 25 was written down (i.e., after
the destruction of Jerusalem) and therefore, not in
the fourth year of Jehoiakim which refers specifically
to the events being narrated.
--------------------------------------------------------

Ezekiel 33:24, 27 refers to those in "devastated
places." Is it true that these words were "written ten
years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem," and does
this indicate that "the devastations of Jerusalem"
(Daniel 9:2) did not entail seventy years of complete
desolation of the land, "without an inhabitant"?

At least one not-too-astute critic has stated that the
words at Ezekiel 33:24, 27 were "written ten years
prior to the destruction of Jerusalem," thus
supporting his claim that Jerusalem was considered a
devastated place at this time.

This claim is manifestly false. Going back only a few
verses, Ezekiel 33:21 is clear as to what time period
these words apply. He specifically refers to an
"escaped one from Jerusalem" who notifies the exiles
in Babylon that Jerusalem had been destroyed. For this
reason, Jehovah could accurately refer to "the
inhabitants of these devastated places." (See also
Jeremiah 44:2, 6 which provides evidence that Judah
"came to be a devastated place" only after its
destruction, as related to those who fled to Egypt in
607 B.C.E.)

But does the phrase "inhabitants of . . . devastated
places" imply that the "devastations of Jerusalem,"
referred to at Daniel 9:2, did not entail seventy
years of complete desolation of the land, "without an
inhabitant"?

No, for these very verses confirm that Jehovah's
judgement against Judah was still in progress, and
even those who tried to remain in the land (thinking
it was an inheritance) would fall by the sword, thus
fulfilling Jehovah's Word by Jeremiah that the land
would lie desolate, "without an inhabitant" (see
Jeremiah 9:11; 26:9; 32:43; 33:10-12; 34:22):


"And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying:
"Son of man, the inhabitants of these devastated
places are saying even concerning the soil of Israel,
'Abraham happened to be just one and yet he took
possession of the land. And we are many; to us the
land has been given as something to possess.' . . .
"This is what you should say to them, 'This is what
the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "As I am alive,
surely the ones who are in the devastated places will
fall by the sword itself; and the one who is upon the
surface of the field, to the wild beast I shall
certainly give him for food; and those who are in the
strong places and in the caves will die by the
pestilence itself. And I shall actually make the land
a desolate waste, even a desolation, and the pride of
its strength must be made to cease and the mountains
of Israel must be laid desolate, with no one passing
through. And they will have to know that I am Jehovah
when I make the land a desolate waste, even a
desolation, on account of all their detestable things
that they have done."'"—Ezekiel 33:23, 24, 27-29.


In fulfillment, 2 Kings 25:25, 26 reports that by the
seventh month, "all the people, from small to great"
fled to Egypt, leaving the land desolate, "without an
inhabitant":


"And it came about in the seventh month . . . that all
the people, from small to great, and the chiefs of the
military forces rose up and came into Egypt; for they
had become afraid because of the Chaldeans."


Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the seventy
years of the desolation of the land officially begun
to be counted after the first of the seventh Jewish
month in 607 B.C.E. (or September 21-22, 607 B.C.E. on
the Gregorian calendar).
--------------------------------------------------------

Critics allege that the New World Translation is
biased in its translation of Jeremiah 29:10. Is this
true?

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures,
published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
translates Jeremiah 29:10 as follows:


"For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with
the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall
turn my attention to you people, and I will establish
toward you my good word in bringing you back to this
place.'"


Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses assert that the Hebrew
word le Babel translated as "at Babylon" is more
correctly translated "for Babylon," which would
significantly change the meaning of this verse. Their
purpose is to make it appear as if the seventy years
of servitude to Babylon did not entail that the entire
nation of Judah be exiled for the full seventy year
period. They reason that the "seventy years" refer
only to the period of Babylonian world domination
(hence, "seventy years for Babylon"), thus accounting
for the twenty or so missing years in their
chronology. However, upon close examination it becomes
obvious that Jeremiah 29:10 does not in any way
support this theory. It will also be demonstrated that
the New World Translation is not biased, nor are
Jehovah's Witnesses alone in their translation of this
verse.

Let us first set forth that "at Babylon," as used by
the New World Translation, is an allowable and
grammatically correct translation of this Hebrew word.


The inseparable preposition le (or , comprised of the
Hebrew consonant La´medh and the half-vowel Shewa’´),
as used at Jeremiah 29:10, can accurately be
translated as "to," "for," or "at" (some references
also include "of" or "against") depending on its
context. This can be verified with any authority on
Biblical Hebrew, such as The Essentials of Biblical
Hebrew (by Kyle M. Yates, Ph.D.; revised by John
Joseph Owens, Associate Professor of Old Testament
Interpretation), p. 173.

Having been established that, from a technical
standpoint, the word le Babel can accurately be
rendered "at Babylon," a precise translation of this
verse now becomes primarily an issue of context. So,
in what context were the words at Jeremiah 29:10
spoken? Let us read it in the setting of the
surrounding verses:


"This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel,
has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused
to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 'Build
houses and inhabit [them], and plant gardens and eat
their fruitage. Take wives and become father to sons
and to daughters; and take wives for your own sons and
give your own daughters to husbands, that they may
give birth to sons and to daughters; and become many
there, and do not become few. Also, seek the peace of
the city to which I have caused you to go into exile,
and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace
there will prove to be peace for you yourselves. For
this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has
said: "Let not your prophets who are in among you and
your practicers of divination deceive you, and do not
you listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. For
'it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to you
in my name. I have not sent them,' is the utterance of
Jehovah."'" "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In
accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon
I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will
establish toward you my good word in bringing you back
to this place.’"—Jeremiah 29:4-10.


Throughout the verses cited, the writer continually
refers to the locality of Babylon, where the nation of
"Judah went into exile from off its soil," (2 Kings
25:21) and from where the nation of Judah would be
brought back, as prophesied at Jeremiah 33:7: "I will
bring back the captives of Judah and the captives of
Israel, and I will build them just as at the start."

However, various experts in the field of Near Eastern
studies hold to the view that the seventy years
referred only to the period of Babylonian rule:


"The seventy years counted here evidently refer to
Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity.
They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of
which will see the redemption of the exiles."—The
Seventy Years of Babylon, Avigdor Orr, Vetus
Testamentum, Vol VI, 1956, p. 305; boldface ours.


"Evidently"? The word evidently means "according to
the available evidence." What is the source of this
expert's evidence?

Evidently, not the Bible. There are numerous
contextual settings in which the "seventy years"
appear in the Scriptures:


"Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those
remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they
came to be servants to him and his sons until the
royalty of Persia began to reign; to fulfill Jehovah's
word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid
off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it
kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."—2 Chronicles
36:20-21.

"The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the
people of Judah . . . all this land must become a
devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these
nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy
years."'—Jeremiah 25:1a, 11.

"In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of
the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the
kingdom of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his
reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the
number of the years concerning which the word of
Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for
fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,]
seventy years."—Daniel 9:1-2.

"So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: "O Jehovah
of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy
to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have
denounced these seventy years?"—Zechariah 1:12.


Upon considering these verses, it becomes evident that
the "seventy years" relate to far more than Babylon's
world dominion. Also, the phrase, "that Jehovah’s word
from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished,"
found at 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1, proves that
the "seventy years" had not yet been fulfilled even
after Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus. According to
the Bible, then, the "seventy years" do not refer to
the period of Babylon's world rule.

In fact, the seventy years are most often referred to
in connection with the nation of Judah as a people
(i.e., "concerning all the people of Judah"—Jeremiah
25:1), and the desolation of the land of Judah (2
Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 25:11; Daniel 9:2). Babylon
was simply the instrument, i.e., Jehovah's "servant"
(Jeremiah 25:9), used to impose judgement against the
cities of Judah. Yes, the purpose of "the devastations
of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years," referred to at
Daniel 9:2, was of a punitive nature, resulting from
the flagrant disobedience of Jehovah's people, despite
countless warnings. This is confirmed at length in the
book of Jeremiah:


"Just as you have left me and have gone serving a
foreign god in your land, so you will serve strangers
in a land that is not yours.'"—Jeremiah 5:19.

"'For the sons of Judah have done what is bad in my
eyes,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'They have set
their disgusting things in the house upon which my
name has been called, in order to defile it. . . .
"'Therefore, look! days are coming,' is the utterance
of Jehovah, . . . the land will become nothing but a
devastated place.'"—Jeremiah 7:30-34.

""On what account should the land actually perish, be
actually burned like the wilderness without anyone
passing through?" And Jehovah proceeded to say: "On
account of their leaving my law that I gave [to be]
before them, and [because] they have not obeyed my
voice and have not walked in it.""—Jeremiah 9:12-13.

"Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said,
'"For the reason that you did not obey my words, here
I am sending and I will take all the families of the
north," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even [sending]
to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and
I will bring them against this land and against its
inhabitants and against all these nations round about;
and I will devote them to destruction and make them an
object of astonishment and something to whistle at and
places devastated to time indefinite."—Jeremiah
25:8-9.


Returning to our discussion of Jeremiah 29:10, let us
now see how other Bible translations have rendered
this verse.

The true sense or meaning of Jeremiah 29:10 is
preserved in the paraphrased Living Bible:


"The truth is this: You will be in Babylon for a
lifetime. But then I will come and do for you all the
good things I have promised, and bring you home
again."


Besides the New World Translation and the Living
Bible, over the years a number of other Bible
translations have translated the Hebrew word le Babel
at Jeremiah 29:10 as "at Babylon" or "in Babylon."
These include:


"quia haec dicit Dominus *** coeperint impleri in
Babylone septuaginta anni visitabo vos et suscitabo
super vos verbum meum bonum ut reducam vos ad locum
istum."—Latin Vulgate (c. 405).

"But thus saith the Lord, That after seuentie yeres be
accomplished at Babél, I wil visit you, and performe
my good promes toward you, and cause you to returne to
this place."—The Geneva Bible (1560).

"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall
begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you:
and I will perform my good word in your favour, to
bring you again to this place."—Douay Version (1609).

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be
accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform
my good word toward you, in causing you to return to
this place."—Authorized King James Version (1611,
1769).

"For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are
completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My
good word toward you, and cause you to return to this
place."—New King James Version (1984; based on the
1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica).


Clearly, "at [or, in] Babylon" is the translation of
le Babel that is immediately discerned when the verse
is read in context. It has only been in recent years
that Bible translators (of RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) have
chosen to translate le Babel at Jeremiah 29:10 as "for
Babylon." This has largely been the result of their
inability to explain the simultaneous occurrence of a
full seventy years of exile of the entire nation of
Judah in light of the present-day interpretation of
Neo-Babylonian history.

Thus, the rendition of Jeremiah 29:10 in the New World
Translation is by no means biased or improper, and is
supported by numerous Bible translations, and the
context of the Scriptures themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------

Is it true that 2 Chronicles 36:21 doesn't really say
that Jerusalem laid desolate for seventy years?

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures,
published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
translates 2 Chronicles 36:17-21 as follows:


"So he brought up against them the king of the
Chaldeans, who proceeded to kill their young men with
the sword in the house of their sanctuary, neither did
he feel compassion for young man or virgin, old or
decrepit. Everything He gave into his hand. And all
the utensils, great and small, of the house of the
[true] God and the treasures of the house of Jehovah
and the treasures of the king and of his princes,
everything he brought to Babylon. And he proceeded to
burn the house of the [true] God and pull down the
wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they
burned with fire and also all its desirable articles,
so as to cause ruin. Furthermore, he carried off those
remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they
came to be servants to him and his sons until the
royalty of Persia began to reign; to fulfill Jehovah's
word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid
off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it
kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."


Regarding these, and the verses that follow, the
publication, All Scripture Is Inspired of God and
Beneficial, p.84, states: "The closing verses of
Second Chronicles (36:17-23) give conclusive proof of
the fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:12 and, in addition,
show that a full 70 years must be counted from the
complete desolation of the land to the restoration of
Jehovah's worship at Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. This
desolation therefore begins in 607 B.C.E.—Jer. 29:10;
2 Ki. 25:1-26; Ezra 3:1-6."

There is the opinion among some, however, that the
words at 2 Chronicles 36:21 do not necessary indicate
that Jerusalem laid desolate for seventy years. They
point out that this verse does not specify when the
seventy years began, and therefore, at best, only
indicates that Jerusalem laid desolate for the
remainder of the seventy years. Thus, they reason that
Ezra (the writer of 2 Chronicles) was simply pointing
out that the desolation of the land ended at the close
of the seventy years spoken of by Jeremiah. (Jeremiah
25:11)

It is true that the desolation of the land ended at
the close of the seventy years. But if we refer back
to Jeremiah 25:11 we see that the seventy years began
to count after Jerusalem became "a devastated place,"
that is, at the time of its destruction, which is
precisely the event narrated at 2 Chronicles 36:17-21.
It is for this reason that Ezra does not elaborate on
when the seventy years commenced; it is to be
understood that they took place from that point
forward.

Furthermore, mentioning the seventy years solely as an
end point for the desolation of the land would be
unnecessary since the verses immediately preceding and
following verse 21 make this fact known in much more
definitive terms. The desolation of the land was the
result of carrying "off those remaining . . . to
Babylon." The preceding verse (2 Chronicles 36:20)
tells us that these ones became servants to
Nebuchadnezzar and his sons "until the royalty of
Persia began to reign." And, the twoverses that follow
(2 Chronicles 36:22, 23) mention Cyrus' decree, "in
the first year of Cyrus," permitting the Jews to
return to their homeland to bring an end to the
desolation of the land. Therefore, only if the
prophesied seventy-year period commenced with the
desolation of the land would Ezra have addressed the
issue at all; to do so for any other reason would
serve no purpose but to confuse.

A popular Bible translation among those who hold to
the view that Ezra was simply stating that the land
laid desolate for the remainder of the seventy years
is the the New International Version, which translates
2 Chronicles 36:21 as follows:


"The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of
its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were
completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD
spoken by Jeremiah."—2 Chronicles 36:21, New
International Version.


Whether intentionally or not, the translators of the
NIV have arranged the sentence structure of verse 21
so that it appears that the seventy years are not in
any way connected to the desolation of the land of
Judah. Incidentally, a literal word-for-word
translation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 is provided by the
publishers of the New International Version in the
Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament (John R.
Kohlenberger III, Zondervan Publishing, 1987). Shown
below, each word or hyphenated word-group corresponds
to an original Hebrew word, with the words arranged so
that they read from left to right:


"to-fulfill | word-of | Yahweh | by-mouth-of |
Jeremiah | until | she-enjoyed | the-land |
Sabbaths-of-her | all-of | days-of | to-be-desolate |
she-rested | to-complete | seventy | year."


Please note the word translated by the NIV as
"to-complete." It is the Hebrew word lemâlê',
comprised of the inseparable preposition le followed
by mâlê', which literally means "to fill" or "to be
full of." Strong's Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of
the Old Testament also defines the word, when used in
this context (i.e., as an infinitive verb form), as
"accomplish," "satisfy," or "fulfill."

Interestingly, the NIV translates the identical word,
lemâlê', as "to-fulfill" at the beginning of the very
same verse where it later translates it as
"to-complete." In comparison, most other Bibles
translate both occurrences of lemâlê' in verse 21 as
"to fulfill." Is it possible that the translators of
the NIV chose the rendering "to-complete" to give the
reader the impression that the seventy years were
already in progress?

Possibly. But, the significant word here is not the
verb "complete," but rather, the preposition "to,"
which, when modifying a verb, literally means "with
the resultant condition of." Under no circumstance can
it be translated "until," as done by the New
International Version. The word-for-word interlinear
translation reveals that the land laid desolate with
the resultant condition of seventy years being
fulfilled. However, if, as critics claim, the seventy
years had already begun to be fulfilled several years
prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and if the
desolation of the land was not in any way connected to
the fulfillment of the seventy years, its mention
would be completely meaningless. The desolation of the
land could not add to the fulfillment of the prophecy
if it was already being fulfilled (since this would
require that all criteria for fulfillment had already
been met). Thus, 2 Chronicles 36:21 can mean one thing
only—that the seventy years of devastation began after
Jerusalem's destruction.

A few other Bibles translate 2 Chronicles 36:21 in a
manner similar to the NIV. Among these are the New
American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, and
The Bible in Basic English. Despite their chosen
rendition, the translators of the New American
Standard Bible evidently recognized the importance of
preserving the true meaning of this verse, as shown by
the included footnote:


"to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All
the days of its desolation it kept sabbath 1until
seventy years were complete.

Footnote: 1Lit to fulfill seventy years"


While "to complete" is certainly a possible
translation of lemâlê', most Bible translations have
rendered it as "to fulfill" as shown below:


"to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All
the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to
fulfil seventy years."—Revised Standard Version.

"to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths.
All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to
fulfill seventy years."—New Revised Standard Version.

"To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for
as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to
fulfil threescore and ten years."—King James Version.

"to fulfil the word of Jehovah by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All
the days of its desolation it kept sabbath, to fulfil
seventy years."—Darby Translation.

"This was to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth
of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths;
for as long as it lay desolate it had a Sabbath-rest,
fulfilling seventy years."—The Modern Language Bible:
The New Berkeley Version in Modern English.

"to fulfil the word of Jehovah by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths: for
as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfil
threescore and ten years."—American Standard Version.

"to fulfil Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah,
till the country had paid up its sabbaths: all the
time of its desolation it kept sabbath, filling out
seventy years."—The Bible in Living English.


The following Bibles translate 2 Chronicles 36:21 more
uniquely, but preserve the intended meaning:


"All this was to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken
by Jeremiah: "Until the land has retrieved its lost
sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall
have rest while seventy years are fulfilled.""—The New
American Bible.

"Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah
came true, that the land must rest for seventy years
to make up for the years when the people refused to
observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible (paraphrased).

"in order to fulfill the word of Jehovah in the mouth
of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths;
all the days of the desolation it kept the sabbath, to
the full measure of seventy years."—Green's Literal
Translation.

"to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of
Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all
the days of the desolation it kept sabbath—to the
fulness of seventy years."—Young's Literal
Translation.


The Awake! of August 8, 1980 (p.19) correctly points
out that "although the Bible does not depend on
Josephus, or any secular historian, for verification
of what it says, nevertheless an appreciation of how
the Bible has proved true in the past might well
encourage objective persons to consider closely what
it says for our day."

Thus, we'll do well to consider two separate accounts
by Jewish historian Josephus, which corroborate the
Biblical account, showing that the seventy years
commenced after the complete fall of Jerusalem:


"But the King of Babylon . . . placed no other nation
in their country. By which means all Judea, and
Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert
for seventy years."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book X,
Chapter IX, Verse 1.

"he [Nebuchadnezzar] . . . set our temple that was at
Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people
entirely out of their own country, and transferred
them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was
desolate during the interval of seventy
years."—Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 19.


Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of
Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began
following the destruction of the temple:


"He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and
destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in
the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70
years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.


And, Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 C.E.) records:


"When the whole people, then, was transported, and the
city made desolate, and the sanctuary destroyed, that
the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which He spake
by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "The
sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years."


Referring to the words at 2 Chronicles 36:21, a
well-known critic of Jehovah's Witnesses has gone on
the record admitting that, "these words can imply that
the land was desolated for exactly seventy years." To
the contrary, however, he reasons that they don't
imply this (and then incorrectly applies Ezekiel 33:24
in support of his view).

The word-for-word interlinear translation of 2
Chronicles 36:21, as well as numerous supporting Bible
translations and the above historical testimony,
affirm that following the destruction of Jerusalem,
the Jews spent a full seventy years in Babylonian
captivity while the land comprising Judah laid
completely desolate, "without an inhabitant."
--------------------------------------------------------

Do the words at Zechariah 1:7, 12 indicate that by 519
B.C.E. the seventy years of desolation had not yet
been fulfilled? If so, might this suggest that the
seventy-year period began in or around 589 B.C.E.?

At Zechariah 1:7 we read:


"On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, that
is, the month Shebat, in the second year of Darius,
the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah the son of
Berechiah the son of Iddo the prophet."


Using 539 B.C.E. as a pivotal date establishes the
"twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month" of the
"second year of Darius" as February 9, 519 B.C.E. on
the Gregorian calendar. It should be noted that the
Darius spoken of at Zechariah 1:7 is the Persian king
Darius I (also known as Darius the Great, or Darius
Hystaspes), and not Darius the Mede ("the son of
Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes."—Daniel 9:1) who
took administrative control of Babylon following its
conquest by Cyrus the Great.

Zechariah continues in verse 12:


"So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: 'O Jehovah
of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy
to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have
denounced these seventy years?'"


From the angel's use of the words "these seventy
years" (New World Translation), it might appear to
some that toward the conclusion of the seventy years
the angel is asking Jehovah how much longer Jerusalem
must lie desolate. (Compare with "those seventy years"
as used by the following translations: Amplified
Bible, Living Bible, King James Version, Modern King
James Version, Darby Version, and Green's Literal
Translation.) Those who recognize and admit that the
Biblical evidence indicates that the seventy years of
desolation commenced after the destruction of
Jerusalem, but who are unable to reconcile the twenty
or so missing years (according to presently-accepted
secular chronology), have advanced the theory that the
"seventy years" ran up to the completion of the
reconstructed temple in Jerusalem. Somehow, they
reason that up until this time the land of Judah was
still considered "desolate."

This, of course, was not the case. At Jeremiah 29:10,
Jehovah reassured the Jewish exiles that after seventy
(not forty-eight or fifty) years had been fulfilled at
Babylon, they would be permitted to return to their
homeland:


"For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with
the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall
turn my attention to you people, and I will establish
toward you my good word in bringing you back to this
place.'"


The Bible elsewhere reports that the seventy years ran
"until the royalty of Persia began to reign" (2
Chronicles 36:20). Cyrus' decree, made in "the first
year of Cyrus the king of Persia," (Ezra 1:1-4) or
538/7 B.C.E., released the Jews from servitude to
Babylon, permitting them to return to Judah to rebuild
their cities. Thus, in 537 B.C.E., a total of 49,897
Jews made the expedition back to their homeland (Ezra
2:64), and "when the seventh month arrived the sons of
Israel were in [their] cities." (Ezra 3:1)

Yes, the fact that the Persian king Darius I is ruling
at this time, as stated in Zechariah 1:7, establishes
that the seventy years ended as much as twenty years
earlier, when, in the first year of Darius the Mede,
Daniel correctly discerned that their completion was
approaching. (Daniel 9:2)

To suggest that the seventy year period ran from 589
B.C.E. to 519 B.C.E. (or 587/6 B.C.E. to 516 B.C.E.),
whether speaking in terms of servitude or desolation,
or both, is completely without foundation, and
contradicts both Scripture and well-established
history. This subject is discussed further, with
details as to what the angel was speaking of, in
Chapter 8: Mercy to the Persecuted But Judgment to the
Persecutors of the Watchtower Society publication
Paradise Restored To Mankind - By Theocracy, pp.
130-3).
--------------------------------------------------------

Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C.E., but the Jewish
captives did not return to their homeland until 537
B.C.E. Therefore, how could it be said that the Jews
served "the king of Babylon" for seventy years if the
king of Babylon was conquered two years earlier?

At Ezra 1:1-3 we read that it was in the first year of
Cyrus that the decree was issued allowing the Jews to
return to their homeland:


"And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,
that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might
be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus
the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass
through all his realm, and also in writing, saying:

"This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All
the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the
heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned
me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in
Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people,
may his God prove to be with him. So let him go up to
Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of
Jehovah the God of Israel—he is the [true] God—which
was in Jerusalem."—Ezra 1:1-3, NWT (see also 2
Chronicles 36:22-23).


Some critics have suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses
have concocted an unorthodox and dishonest explanation
in asserting that the seventy years of desolation
ended in 537 B.C.E. Is this claim substantiated?

No. At Ezra 1:1, reference is made to "the first year
of Cyrus," not "the year Cyrus became king" (or
accession year), so he was speaking of the first
regnal year of Cyrus, which cuneiform documentation
places in 538/537 B.C.E. Jewish historian Josephus
corroborates by referring to "the first year of the
reign ofCyrus."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI,
Chapter I.

This point is generally agreed upon by historians. For
instance, the Handbook of Bible Chronology by Jack
Finegan (Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 170,
states:


"The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus
when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish
exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (II Ch
36:22f.; Ezr 1:1f.) are presumably stated in terms of
his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in
that city. According to the cuneiform evidence and the
Babylonian calendar, Babylon fell on Tashritu 16 = Oct
12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus entered the city two and
one-half weeks later on Arahsamnu 3 = Oct 29. His
Babylonian regnal years began, therefore, as shown in
Table 77. Accordingly his first year, in which he made
the proclamation, was 538/537 B.C."


TABLE 77. BABYLONIAN REGNAL YEARS OF CYRUS
AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS REIGN
Accession 539/538
Year 1 538/537
Year 2 537/536

The Watchtower of May 1, 1952, pp. 271-2 further
observes:


"In late years several cuneiform tablets have been
discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg
both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one
tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the
date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have
ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian
Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our
present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that
Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days
after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year
commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another
cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11"
Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was
determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to
have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this
first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree
to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild
the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made
in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C.

In either case this would have given sufficient time
for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their
expedition and to make their long four-month journey
from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September
29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish
month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at
Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C.,
officially ends the seventy years of desolation as
recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning
of the desolation of the land must have officially
begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C.,
the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C.,
which is the beginning point for the counting of the
2,520 years."


The account is summarized nicely by Werner Keller in
his book The Bible As History, p. 352:


"In any case it was a risky business to leave this
wealthy country of Babylon, where they had established
themselves and where most of them had grown up, and to
set out on the difficult road back to the ruins of a
ravaged land. Despite this, in the spring of 537 B.C.,
after long preparations a lengthy caravan set out on
the trail toward the old homeland. . . . Almost 800
miles have to be covered between Babylon and distant
Jerusalem, with the clouds of dust churned up by the
caravan as a faithful companion throughout the whole
journey."


Until their release in 537 B.C.E, for the entire
duration that the Jewish exiles were held captive in
Babylon, it could rightly be said that they were
serving the king of Babylon. This is expanded upon in
paragraph 10 of an article entitled "The 'Cup' That
All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand" that appeared in
the September 15, 1979 issue of The Watchtower, p. 24:


"It is true that he [Cyrus] conquered Gentile Babylon
in 539 B.C.E., or about two years before the "seventy
years" of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He
proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did
not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King
Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by
Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of
Babylon" 70 years."


Are Jehovah's Witnesses justified in making this
claim? Yes, for the Bible tells us that after Cyrus II
conquered Babylon, Darius the Mede became "king over
the the kingdom of the Chaldeans," (Daniel 5:31, 9:1)
and shortly thereafter, Cyrus established his kingship
over all of Babylon, even being referred to as "Cyrus
the king of Babylon" at Ezra 5:13. A contemporary
inscription on a clay barrel confirms the accuracy of
the Biblical account:


"All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire
country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors
(included), bowed to him (Cyrus) and kissed his feet,
jubilant that he (had received) the kingship . . . I
am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate
king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and
Akkad."—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, James B. Pritchard, p.316.


However, does that fact that Jeremiah 27:7 indicates
that the nations would serve "him [Nebuchadnezzar],
his son, and his grandson" mean that the seventy years
of servitude would not include Cyrus as "king of
Babylon"?

In fulfillment of Jeremiah 27:7, the exiled Jews did
in fact literally serve Nebuchadnezzar's son
(Evil-merodach) and Nebuchadnezzar's grandson
(co-regent Belshazzer, whose mother was reportedly
Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris). However, the
captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon,
including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus,
none of whom bore any blood relation to
Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, the words at Jeremiah 27:7,
though indisputably true, were obviously not meant to
be an all-encompassing list of rulers whom the Jews
would serve during the seventy years. Therefore, the
Jews continued to serve the king of Babylon, which
included Cyrus, until their official release initiated
by Cyrus' decree described at Ezra 1:1:


"And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,
that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might
be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus
the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass
through all his realm."—Ezra 1:1 (see also 2
Chronicles 36:22).


The highlighted portion of the above-quoted verse
serves as unimpeachable evidence that "Jehovah's word
from the mouth of Jeremiah" had not yet been
accomplished, even by the "first year of Cyrus,"
proving conclusively that the conquest of Babylon by
Persia was not the determining factor in fulfilling
Jeremiah's prophecy. Therefore, the Jewish nation
continued to serve the king of Babylon until their
release from captivity in 537 B.C.E., resulting in the
reoccupation of the land of Judah and the end of the
desolation of the land.
--------------------------------------------------------

The book "Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand"
(published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society)
states in the footnote on p. 105 that "research made
it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E." Critics
allege that there was no such "research" and that
there is "no evidence whatsoever for this new date."
Is this true?

The footnote on p. 105 of Revelation - Its Grand
Climax at Hand reads: "Providentially, those Bible
Students had not realized that there is no zero year
between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it
necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero
year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held
good at "A.D. 1914."—See The Truth Shall Make You
Free, published by the Watch Tower Society in 1943,
page 239."

What "research" made it necessary to adjust the date
606 B.C.E. to 607 B.C.E.?

The Watchtower of February 1, 1955, states on p. 94:
"Jehovah's witnesses from 1877 up to and including the
publishing of "The Truth Shall Make You Free" of 1943
considered 536 B.C. as the year for the return of the
Jews to Palestine, basing their calculations for the
fall of Babylon on secular histories that were
inaccurate, not up to date on archaeological
evidences. This meant that Jeremiah's seventy years of
desolation for Jerusalem ran back from 536 B.C. to 606
B.C., instead of more correctly as now known from 537
B.C. to 607 B.C. (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 25:12; Zec.
1:12)"

A more detailed account of this research was presented
in the Watchtower of May 1, 1952, pp. 271-2:


21 At this point some will inquire why Charles T.
Russell in 1877 used the date 606 B.C. for the fall of
Jerusalem whereas The Watchtower of late years has
been using 607 B.C. This is because, in the light of
modern scholarship, two slight errors were discovered
to have been made which cancel each other out and make
for the same result, namely, 1914. Concerning the
first error, Russell and others considered 1 B.C. to
A.D. 1 as being two years whereas in fact this is only
one year because, as has been said above, there is no
"zero" year in the B.C.-A.D. system for counting
years. "The Christian era began, not with no year, but
with a 1st year."—The Westminster Dictionary of the
Bible, p. 102.

22 The second error had to do with not beginning the
count of the 2,520 years at the right point in view of
historic facts and circumstances. Almost all early
Bible chronology ties in with secular history at the
year 539 B.C., in which year the fall of Babylon to
Darius and Cyrus of the Medes and the Persians
occurred. In late years several cuneiform tablets have
been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon
which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates.
The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives
the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists
have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C.,
Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according
to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also
says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon
16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession
year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in
another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus
No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was
determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to
have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this
first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree
to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild
the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made
in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C.

23 In either case this would have given sufficient
time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize
their expedition and to make their long four-month
journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by
September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh
Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as
recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30,
537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of
desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so
the beginning of the desolation of the land must have
officially begun to be counted after September 21-22,
607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607
B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of
the 2,520 years.


As one can plainly see, the Revelation Climax book is
truthful in stating that "research made it necessary
to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E." The false claim
advanced by apostates amounts to nothing more than a
feeble attempt to "speak twisted things to draw away
the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30)
--------------------------------------------------------

Are Jehovah's Witnesses guilty of twisting the
scriptures found at Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 to
support their fundamental belief regarding 1914?

At Daniel 1:1 we read the following:


"In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the
king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came
to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."


Referring to a later period, Daniel 2:1 reads:


"And in the second year of the kingship of
Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his
spirit began to feel agitated, and his very sleep was
made to be something beyond him."


How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these scriptures?

With regards to "the third year of the kingship of
Jehoiakim" referred to at Daniel 1:1, the following
comments are offered:


"Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought
pressure upon the Judean king "and so Jehoiakim became
his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he
[Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him
[Nebuchadnezzar]. "Evidently it is to this third year
of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that
Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1."—Insight on the
Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 1269.

"This "third year" of vassalage to Babylon would be
the eleventh year of Jehoiakim's entire reign."—The
Watchtower, September 15, 1964, p. 637.


And, the "second year" of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned at
Daniel 2:1, is interpreted as follows:


"The book of Daniel states that it was in "the second
year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship (probably counting
from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and
therefore actually referring to his 20th regnal year)
that Nebuchadnezzar had the dream about the
golden-headed image. (Da 2:1)"—Insight on the
Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 481.

"In the second year after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction
of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., which would be the
twentieth year of his kingship over Babylon but the
second year of his exercise of world domination, he
had a dream that was a prophecy from God. (Dan.
2:1)"—The Watchtower, December 15, 1964, p. 756.


How can Jehovah's Witnesses say these things,
especially when the Scriptures appear to be so clear
on the matter? Is it not a deliberate distortion of
God's Word to suggest that these scriptures do not
mean what they say?


Daniel 1:1

The Bible encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures,
summarizes the Witnesses' position on Daniel 1:1 well:


"Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought
pressure upon the Judean king "and so Jehoiakim became
his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he
[Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him
[Nebuchadnezzar]." Evidently it is to this third year
of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that
Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1. It could not be
Jehoiakim's third year of his 11-year reign over
Judah, for at that time Jehoiakim was a vassal, not to
Babylon, but to Egypt's Pharaoh Necho. It was not
until Jehoiakim's fourth year of rule over Judah that
Nebuchadnezzar demolished Egyptian domination over
Syria-Palestine by his victory at Carchemish (625
B.C.E. [apparently after Nisan]). (Jer 46:2) Since
Jehoiakim's revolt against Babylon led to his downfall
after about 11 years on the throne, the beginning of
his three-year vassalage to Babylon must have begun
toward the end of his eighth year of rule, or early in
620 B.C.E."—Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p.
1269.


Can this explanation be substantiated? A detailed
examination of the Biblical and historical facts bears
out that it can. However, let us first establish some
of the surrounding details.

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses often put forward the
idea that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Judah and took
captives in his accession year (605 B.C.E., according
to secular chronology). By their reasoning, this
enables them to suggest that the seventy years of
servitude commenced at this time, even though, in
actuality, this would amount to only 67 years. Some of
these critics have gone on the record stating that the
year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is not mentioned along
with the "third year of Jehoiakim" at Daniel 1:1,
because it was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.
Incidentally, this claim is false. Nebuchadnezzar
ascended to the throne following the battle of
Carchemish, which didn't occur until the fourth year
of Jehoiakim. This is attested to by the Scriptures
(Jeremiah 46:2), and is also supported by Jewish
historian Josephus, and most modern-day historical
references that deal with the subject. For example,
the Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by historian Jack
Finegan (Princeton University, 1964), p. 200 states:
"According to the contemporary prophet Jeremiah, the
battle of Carchemish took place in the fourth year of
King Jehoiakim of Judah." After a detailed examination
of Jeremiah's claim, Finegan concludes on p. 201:
"This was in fact in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim
as stated in Jer 46:2."

But what about Jeremiah 25:1, where "the fourth year
of Jehoiakim" is equated with the "first year of
Nebuchadnezzar?" Finegan goes on to explain:


"In Hebrew the words are hashshanah haroshniyt. The
phrase is not found elsewhere but we recognize,
modifying the word "year," the feminine singular form
of the adjective which can mean either "first" or
"beginning." Since a related noun is used in the
standard designation of an accession year, the phrase
in Jer 25:1 probably also means the "beginning year,"
i.e., the accession year, of Nebuchadnezzar. Accepting
this as the correct translation, the synchronism in
Jer 25:1 is correct and in agreement with that in Jer
46:2. The fourth year of Jehoiakim included the battle
of Carchemish and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to
the throne of Babylon."—Handbook of Biblical
Chronology, Jack Finegan, Princeton University, 1964,
p. 202.


Thus, Jewish historian Josephus was correct in
reporting that "in the fourth year of the reign of
Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the
government over the Babylonians." (Antiquities of the
Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verse 1) The Bible confirms
the testimony that Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat Egypt
until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, up until which
point Judah continued as a vassal to Egypt:


"This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to
Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: For
Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Necho
the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river
Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar the king
of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim
the son of Josiah, the king of Judah."—Jeremiah
46:1-2.


The Biblical testimony on this subject does not end
there. The book of Jeremiah contains the "the words of
Jeremiah . . . to whom the word of Jehovah occurred."
(Jeremiah 1:1-2) These included Jeremiah's prophetic
pronouncements against disobedient Judah, which began
in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued down
to the "the completion of the eleventh year of
Zedekiah the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, until
Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month."
(Jeremiah 1:3) After some 23 years of continuous
prophesying, specifically in the fourth and fifth
years of Jehoiakim's reign, we read of the nature of
Jeremiah's message at this time:


"Now it came about in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that this word
occurred to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying: "Take for
yourself a roll of a book, and you must write in it
all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel
and against Judah and against all the nations, since
the day that I spoke to you, since the days of Josiah,
clear down to this day. Perhaps those of the house of
Judah will listen to all the calamity that I am
thinking of doing to them, to the end that they may
return, each one from his bad way, and that I may
actually forgive their error and their sin."—Jeremiah
36:1-3.

"Now it came about in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah, the king of Judah, in the ninth month,
that all the people in Jerusalem and all the people
that were coming in from the cities of Judah into
Jerusalem proclaimed a fast before Jehovah. . . . And
against Jehoiakim the king of Judah you should say,
'This is what Jehovah has said: "You yourself have
burned up this roll, saying, 'Why is it that you have
written on it, saying: "The king of Babylon will come
without fail and will certainly bring this land to
ruin and cause man and beast to cease from
it"?'"—Jeremiah 36:9, 29.


The above scriptures suggest that by the "fifth year
of Jehoiakim," Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come up
against Judah, for Jehoiakim confidently rejects the
words of Jeremiah in disbelief, inasmuch as he burned
up the roll upon which Jeremiah's words were written.

Yet, some contend that statements made by Berossus, a
Babylonian priest of Bel who lived more than 250 years
after the fact, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar did in
fact take Jewish captives in his accession year.
Nevertheless, it has been observed that "many modern
scholars have been inclined to distrust Berossus." (A
Scheme of Babylonian Chronology, Duncan Macnaughton,
London, 1930, p. 2) Aside from the fact that there are
no cuneiform tablets supporting Berossus' alleged
claim (whereas cuneiform documentation does exist for
Nebuchadnezzar's first siege against Judah in his 7th
year1), it is unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar took
captives from Judah after the battle of Carchemish, as
we are told that, although having defeated Egypt, "he
was prevented from following up his advantage
immediately because the death of his father in Babylon
made it necessary for him to return home to be
crowned." (Biblical Archaeology, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1979 edition, p. 177.) Along similar
lines, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, by J.
Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, adds that "The young
Babylonian crown prince [Nebuchadnezzar] had to depart
Syria speedily upon receiving word of the death of his
father." (p. 389)

Also, it is noteworthy that Jewish historian Josephus
specifically reports that Nebuchadnezzar did not take
Jewish captives in his accession year:


"Now in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one
whose name was Nebuchadnezzar . . . the king of
Babylon passed over Euphrates, and took all Syria, as
far as Pelusium, excepting Judea."—Antiquities of the
Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verse 1.


But even more telling is the silence of the Biblical
record as to any captivity prior to the seventh year
of Nebuchadnezzar when expressly dealing with the
subject at Jeremiah 52:28-30. Unquestionably, a book
that so extensively details the history of the Jewish
nation with such candor and honesty, would not be
lacking in such details if they were historically
factual.

Josephus explains that it was not until Jehoiakim
refused to "pay his tribute" to the Babylonian king,
in Jehoiakim's third year as a vassal king (which was
his eleventh year as king over the Hebrews, and
Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year), that
Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to lay siege to Jerusalem.
(Daniel 1:1; 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:5-7):


"But when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four
years, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim's government
over the Hebrews, the king of Babylon made an
expedition with mighty forces against the Jews, and
required tribute of Jehoiakim, and threatened, on his
refusal, to make war against him. He was affrighted at
his threatening, and bought his peace with money, and
brought the tribute he was ordered to bring for three
years. But on the third year, upon hearing that the
king of the Babylonians made an expedition against the
Egyptians, he did not pay his tribute."—Antiquities of
the Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verses 1, 2.


It was a short time after this that Nebuchadnezzar
took the first Jewish captives. It was expressly
because of Jehoiakim's rebellion that Nebuchadnezzar
took captives, for up to that point he had Jerusalem's
full cooperation, as observed by historian G. Ernest
Wright:


"Jehoiakim of Judah promptly submitted and remained
loyal for a time before rebelling (II Kings
24:1)."—Biblical Archaeology, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1979 edition, p. 177, 179.


Historian and chronologist Jack Finegan further
expands:


"The purpose of Nebuchadnezzar now undoubtedly
included punishment of the defection of Judah and
re-establishment of his control there, and in the
record of the seventh year we are told explicitly of
an attack upon "the city of Judah" which must mean
Jerusalem."—Light from the Ancient Past, Princeton
University, Second Printing, 1974, p. 222.


Josephus' account agrees with the Biblical record at
Jeremiah 52:28-30, which specifically reports that
Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his 7th year,
18th year and 23rd year. Critics may point out that
Jeremiah 52:28-30 does not say that Nebuchadnezzar did
not take captives in his accession year, however, the
conclusive nature of verses 28 to 30 does not allow
for this, as the highlighted portions demonstrate:


"These are the people whom Nebuchadrezzar took into
exile: in the seventh year, three thousand and
twenty-three Jews.

In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, from
Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two
souls.

In the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar,
Nebuzaradan the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into
exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls.

All the souls were four thousand and six
hundred."—Jeremiah 52:28-30.


While critics of Jehovah's Witnesses frequently put
forward the theory that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish
captives in his accession year, so as to suggest that
the "seventy years" commenced at this time, this is
not the position generally taken by modern historians.
For example, the following authoritative references
support the understanding that the first Jewish
captives were not taken until Nebuchadnezzar's seventh
year:


A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians
by George Stephen Goodspeed, Professor of Ancient
History, University of Chicago, 1927.

The Greatness That Was Babylon
H. W. F. Saggs, London University, 1962.

Archaeology and the Old Testament World
Dr. John Gray, King's College, University of Aberdeen,
1962.

Everyday Life in Babylonia and Assyria
H. W. F. Saggs, 1965.

Light from the Ancient Past
Jack Finegan, Princeton University, 1974.

Biblical Archaeology
G. Ernest Wright, Westminster, 1979.


Furthermore, it would be nonsensical to suggest that
Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took
captives in his accession year, and then didn't demand
tribute (i.e., vassalage) from Jehoiakim for another
four to five years. It was only after having already
served faithfully as a tributary king under
Nebuchadnezzar for three years, and then rebelling,
that Nebuchadnezzar saw fit to punish Judah.

Interestingly, the verses immediately following Daniel
1:1 may provide the most convincing evidence that
Daniel was not referring to the third year of
Jehoiakim's kingship over Judah:


"In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the
king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came
to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. In time
Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah
and a part of the utensils of the house of the [true]
God, sothat he brought them to the land of Shinar to
the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to
the treasure-house of his god.

Then the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court
official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of
the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in
whom there was no defect at all, but good in
appearance and having insight into all wisdom and
being acquainted with knowledge, and having
discernment of what is known, in whom also there was
ability to stand in the palace of the king; and to
teach them the writing and the tongue of the
Chaldeans."—Daniel 1:1-4.


Verse 2 relates that Jehovah gave Jehoiakim and "a
part of the utensils" of the temple into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar. This event certainly did not occur in
Jehoiakim's third year over Judah, as 2 Kings 23:36
and 2 Chronicles 36:5 tell us that Jehoiakim reigned
in Jerusalem for a total of eleven years. Those who
attempt to equate this event (at Daniel 1:2) with the
tributary submission mentioned at 2 Kings 24:1 seem to
ignore the fact that a siege was not necessary to
persuade Jehoiakim to submit; the siege is mentioned
only in connection with Jehoiakim's rebellion after
having served faithfully for three years. Thus,
Jehoikim's being given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar
did not occur in his third year over Judah, but
rather, refers to the capture and death of Jehoiakim
in his eleventh year, after which, 2 Kings 24:8-17
reports, Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, reigned for only
three months in Jerusalem before himself being taken
captive to Babylon, along with "the princes and all
the valiant, mighty men," which presumably included
Daniel himself.

It is these "princes" and "valiant men," mentioned at
2 Kings 24:12-14 as being taken captive in the eighth
year of Nebuchadnezzar, that Daniel 1:3 refers to as
"royal offspring" and "nobles." The "princes" (or
"royal offspring") could not have been taken captive
more than once, indicating that the events described
at Daniel 1:1-3 are the same as those described at 2
Kings 24:12-16 (where it is established that "all the
princes and all the valiant, mighty men" were taken
captive).

Also, please note that verse 3 begins with the adverb
"then" (NWT, NIV, NKJV; other translations use "and,"
meaning "together with or along with") indicating that
the events described in this verse occurred at the
time of, or following, the events mentioned in the
previous verse. Therefore, the exiles mentioned at
Daniel 1:3 were brought to Babylon after Jehoiakim was
given into Nebuchadnezzar's hand, in the eleventh year
of his reign over Judah.

When these details are not overlooked, it becomes
increasingly obvious that Daniel 1:1-3 is nothing more
than a condensed account of 2 Kings 24:1-17 and 2
Chronicles 36:5-10. It is not unusual that Daniel
omits mention of Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, since
his reign lasted a mere three months before he was
whisked away to Babylon along with the other "royal
offspring." The fact that this three month reign was
considered insignificant so far as Bible prophecy is
concerned is seen in the fact that Jeremiah 36:30
foretells that Jehoiakim would "come to have no one
sitting upon the throne of David." True to this
prophecy, during the continuing siege against
Jerusalem, Jehoiachin was removed from the throne by
Nebuchadnezzar shortly after his accession.

In light of the above evidence establishing that
Daniel was not referring to Jehoiakim's third year of
his eleven-year kingship over Judah, is it reasonable
to suggest that he was stating the year of Jehoiakim's
reign as a tributary king under Nebuchadnezzar?

Most definitely. As already touched upon, the Bible
shows that the "siege" referred to at Daniel 1:1 is a
parallel account to that described at 2 Kings 24:1-2,
which plainly states that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to
Judah after Jehoiakim rebelled upon completing three
years of tributary kingship to the Babylonian king:


"In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came
up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three
years. However, he turned back and rebelled against
him. And Jehovah began to send against him marauder
bands of Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians and
marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the
sons of Ammon, and he kept sending them against Judah
to destroy it."—2 Kings 24:1-2.


Additionally, becoming a vassal to a foreign king was
a significant political event, which could easily
change the terms by which a king's reign was reckoned.
Historian and chronologist Jack Finegan presents
details to that effect:


"At that time and in connection with that submission
Jehoiakim may very well have accepted the Babylonian
calendar. As late as the eighteenth year of Josiah the
old Israelite year was still in use and the regnal
year began in the fall, and the same was probably true
up to the present point in the reign of Jehoiakim. But
with the acceptance of the Babylonian calendar the
regnal year would begin in the spring."—Handbook of
Biblical Chronology, Princeton University, 1964, pp.
202-3.


So, instead of trying to reconcile the king's past
reign under the new Babylonian calendar, which would
introduce a seven-month shift (and confusion) into the
equation, the Jews may have kept a separate count of
Jehoiakim's kingship under Nebuchadnezzar.

In summary, as the preceding evidence demonstrates,
the "third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim,"
referred to at Daniel 1:1 cannot be referring to his
third year over Judah, and therefore, is presumably
expressed in terms of Jehoiakim's tributary kingship.


Daniel 2:1

Once it has been established that Daniel 1:1 refers to
the third year of Jehoiakim's tributary kingship under
Nebuchadnezzar, the meaning of Daniel 2:1 is
immediately affected, for Daniel would not have been
brought to Babylon until Nebuchadnezzar's eighth
regnal year, and therefore could not stand before the
king in his "second year."

Despite this foregone conclusion, there is further
evidence supporting this position, which in turn,
corroborates the evidence put forth regarding Daniel
1:1.

Daniel 1:3-5, 18 demonstrates that Daniel 2:1 cannot
be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year:


"Then the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court
official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of
the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in
whom there was no defect at all, but good in
appearance and having insight into all wisdom and
being acquainted with knowledge, and having
discernment of what is known, in whom also there was
ability to stand in the palace of the king; and to
teach them the writing and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. Furthermore, to them 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. . . . And at the end of the days that
the king had said to bring them in, the principal
court official also proceeded to bring them in before
Nebuchadnezzar."—Daniel 1:3-5, 18.


Yes, during a three-year educational program Daniel
and his companions were to learn the "the writing and
the tongue of the Chaldeans." This would be a
necessary step, since Jehovah foretold that the "house
of Israel" would become subject to a nation "whose
language [they] do not know, and [they] cannot hear
[understandingly] what they speak." (Jeremiah 5:15) It
would not have been until after the completion of this
three-year educational program, "at the end of the
days that the king had said to bring them in," (Daniel
1:18) that Daniel could likely serve in any useful
capacity before the king, and even after which, a
reasonable amount of time would have to have passed
before he came to be recognized as one of the "wise
men" of Babylon eligible for death at the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar. (Daniel 2:12, 13) Therefore, if Daniel
2:1 was in fact referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second
regnal year, the testimony at Daniel 1:3-5, 18 could
not be true.

However, at least one critic has asserted that
Nebuchadnezzar's accession year must be added to the
"second year" mentioned at Daniel 2:1 to compensate
for the apparent discrepancy. However, there are at
least two problems with this point of view.

According to cuneiform documentation, Nebuchadnezzar's
accession year began in September, and therefore was
only one half-year in duration, completing in the
Babylonian month of Nisanu (or March/April of the
following year on our calendar). Secondly, when Daniel
says "in the second year of the kingship of
Nebuchadnezzar" he is indicating that Nebuchadnezzar's
second regnal year had not yet completed. Even when
Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is included, the
entire time period covered could amount to as little
as a year-and-a-half. On the other hand, had the dream
occurred at the end of his second year, which it does
not state, this would still only amount to a maximum
of two-and-a-half years, whereas Daniel chapter 1
specifically reports that Daniel and his companions
were brought before the king after a period of three
years had elapsed.

It is apparently because of this that some Hebrew
scholars have suggested that the rendition of Daniel
2:1 should read "twelfth year" instead of "second
year," as born out in the footnote on Daniel 2:1 in
Biblia Hebraica, by Rudolf Kittel, ninth edition of
1954, and in the footnote in The Cross-Reference
Bible, Variorum Edition, by Harold E. Monser, B.A.,
edition of 1910. (For further details, see pp. 172-3
of the Watchtower Society publication "Babylon the
Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!)

In the final analysis, though, this "second year" most
likely refers to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar
following the destruction of Jerusalem, which would be
the twentieth year of his reign over Babylon. Two
years prior to this, the dethronement of Zedekiah took
place, completely abolishing the Judean kingship with
"no one sitting on the throne of David" (Jeremiah
36:30), until its prophesied restoration to occur at
the end of the "appointed times of the nations."
(Ezekiel 21:26-27; Luke 21:24) With the removal of
Zedekiah's crown, the entire nation of Judah fell
under direct servitude to the king of Babylon, no
longer possessing its own king as intermediary, as had
previously been the case with Judah's tributary
submission to Babylon (and to other nations prior to
this). From a Jewish point of view, this would in fact
be the "second year of the kingship of
Nebuchadnezzar"; Nebuchadnezzar had, in effect, become
the king of the Jews. Furthermore, by overturning
Jehovah's typical kingdom, he had also acquired
sovereignty over all nations of the world. It is
therefore not the least bit unusual that Daniel would
choose to refer to his kingship in these terms.


Summary

It is not by mere chance or coincidence that the
explanations offered by Jehovah's Witnesses work out.
They are not the product of twisting scriptures, but
rather, they result when one endeavors to harmonize
all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), recognizing that every
word, no matter how apparently insignificant,
comprises the unfailing Word of God.


Footnotes

1. "Year 7, month Kislimu: The king of Akkad moved his
army into Hatti land, laid siege to the city of Judah
(Ia-a-hu-du) and the king took the city on the second
day of the month of Addaru. He appointed in it a (new)
king of his liking, took heavy booty from it and
brought it into Babylon."—Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, J. M. Pritchard, p.
563-4.