Daniel's gross inconsistency?

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

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

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

They claim Daniel's so-called “three years” of training were actually one year and some months in fact. That way, they can say Daniel was brought to Babylon in the artificial exile they have invented (which Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and others all forgot to mention), can finish his training, be brought before the King, and become known as one of the wise men of Babylon – all in time to interpret the dream in Neb's 2nd year. They do this by claiming that Daniel's training is counted alongside the years of the reign of Neb, but counted in the manner of a Jewish King. Seriously.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Neb began his reign (and Daniel began began his training) in February 604, and just two months later in April, he has completed 1 year of training. But it's only been two months, why? Because the second year of King Neb's reign begins in April. So, now this is his second year. Between then and the next year, is another year of training. That is the second year complete (even though it has only been 1 year and two months). A few months later his training finishes during Neb's third year. So, despite him only being trained for one year and some months, he has had “three years” of training, based on Neb's years. Confused? See our charts to see how this looks on a time-line.

Keep in mind that the Babylonians do not count the reigns of their Kings this way, only Jewish Kings are counted like this. So we must assume that for some odd reason Daniel decided to count the years of his training along the lines of Neb's kingship – but as if Neb were a Jewish King. Oh, and he only does this in this verse, not four verses earlier when he talks of Judah's last king – there he uses the Babylonian method.

Do you think that sounds like a reasonable explanation, or an extremely strained and over-complex way of “explaining” how a straightforward verse actually says something that the explainer wants it to say?

Using such logic, if today was December 31st, and you asked me a question, I could say “I will answer you at the end of two years”, and then answer you the very next day on January 1st.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the “explanation” offered is correct, then this scripture should imply that the training was to end in Nebuchadnezzar's third year (if counted in the manner of a Jewish king) – but it doesn't. All translations are quite clear. When something happens “at the end” of three years, that is three years, or 72 months, later. It's really simple.

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

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

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

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

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

By placing the events of Daniel 10 in the “third year of Cyrus the king of Persia”, Daniel demonstrates that all of his time keeping must refer to the Babylonian Kingship over the Jews. Otherwise, if 587-promoters were consistent in their methods of counting, they would have to insist that Daniel was actually present in Babylon many years earlier during the third year of Cyrus as King of the Persian Empire. Obviously that is impossible. So the only way for them to avoid this problem is to make Daniel's methods of dating inconsistent – a second time. The simple 607 explanation, on the other hand, is consistent throughout and causes no such problems.

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

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