1914: Are We Really Honest About Daniel Chapter 4?

-

 

In this article, we return to the famous date of 607 BCE and the Biblical basis for whether or not 1914 is there (a date which, according to some, should indicate the establishment of God's Kingdom).
This topic has already been treated, from different angles, in two other previous articles (see footnote)*.
The reader who hasn't, may want to check out these articles after reading this.
This will be the last time that this subject will be treated also because it is useless to continue to dispute everything that is said regularly, which is modified from time to time in order to be able to comfort one's preconceptions.
While accepting the fact that "everyone is free to believe what they want" one should at least have the intellectual honesty not to assert that the Bible teaches what it really does not teach.
Anyone who claims to be a Christian should show the utmost respect for the only recognized Authority and this means not forcing scriptures and meanings.
Unfortunately, the "vision of one's heart" often gets the better of the Holy Word of God - Jeremiah 23:16
In any case, everyone will draw their own conclusions and take their own responsibilities – John 17:17; Romans 14:10
With regard to 607 BCE let us proceed in order.
For over a century there has been conflict over this date for various reasons.
Some say that "historians" have proved the correctness of this date or, at least, the high probability that this date is correct.
Many others, on the other hand, with the same title, assert that this date is a historical falsehood, that we started from an old error and that other "finds" or comparisons have definitively disqualified it.
In fact, many historians favor other dates, generally with a difference of 20 years more or less.
There are probably other hypothetical dates as well but the purpose of this blog is not to give an overview of dates and historians and to report who said what, when and why…
In fact we will see that all these discussions leave the time they find for those who really pay attention to Scripture.
Let's imagine an ideal situation.
We have at our disposal two thousand (true) historians and we put a thousand on the right and a thousand on the left.
Those on the right say 607 BCE is correct and to prove it they pull out a number of artifacts, compare dozens of manuscripts, etc.
Those on the left say 607 is an incorrect date and they too, in turn, pull out a number of artifacts and compare scores of manuscripts.
Who is right among them?
How can we mere mortals, i.e. we who are not historians , get an honest idea of ​​who may be right?
Apart from the fact that if we were historians we could fall into error regardless (it is no coincidence that they debate many dates and events: it is clear that both sides cannot be right) but all the more so we who, at best, have only some internet research.
It is true that some of us have proclaimed ourselves historians after reading two books, just as some of us have proclaimed ourselves homeopaths and naturopaths after taking a two-hour course or reading a leaflet…
Anyone who has been "in the truth" (or it would be better to say "in this organization") for a certain number of years knows well what we are talking about and how many of "us" have dispensed medical advice to brothers with various pathologies.
Beyond the easy proclamations, however, very few of us have real historical or other skills, but the point we want to illustrate is another.
Faced with this hypothetical situation, that is, facing two thousand historians who dispute each other, on what basis can we "choose" and who do we choose, in general?
The answer is simple: we have no basis and, without going around too much, we generally choose who we like best.
However, the real situation is quite different from the hypothesized one.
Perhaps out of 2000 scientists 1980 will say 607 is wrong while only 20 will say it is correct.
It is true that, as we have said several times, "it is not the majority that establishes the truth" and God forbid (science is not a democracy)... but the simple fact that each of us chooses to listen to and believe the one who like best, without an objective basis to be able to decide, demonstrates how intellectually dishonest we are.
On several sites and blogs run by Jehovah's Witnesses or protesters, one will be able to read lengthy debates to prove or disprove this date.
Everyone will pull out every comma, every meaning, every discovery or every real or presumed study… and many times we will go from the “historical discussion” to delegitimizing the opponent.
It is not uncommon that, regardless of the heaviness of the topics presented, someone writes things like "I have a research doctorate in this field ... I have a professorship in this university ... I have obtained this recognition ... who are you? What did you study?".
Do we really think that first century Christians had such debates?
What was the only real authority for them?
What should it be for us, even in this "scientific" age where everything is questioned, even the creation of God, the only authority?
However, many will say that demonstrating the historicity of this date is very important because it is undeniably linked to one of the prophecies considered fundamental.
All these debates would actually serve to demonstrate another date with which, for the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is not permitted to disagree: 1914.
Is there a way out of this quagmire of useless and misleading discussions?
All who believe that the Bible is truly the Word of God will agree that what it teaches matters.
Indeed, what he teaches should have absolute priority.
If the hypothesized date (607) really had biblical relevance, then it would certainly be important to try to establish its precision… but what if it weren't?
It goes without saying that if the Bible does not teach what most Witnesses believe it does teach, then all such debates are not only unscriptural but utterly pointless.
What is the use of pulling out proofs and counter-proofs if the object of the question has no reason to exist?
Of course, the historical importance of this date would remain like any other date.
It is absolutely obvious that for a historian a certain date can have a certain importance: it will be useful for understanding how to reconnect various events.
To understand this, it is obvious and positive that there may be some debate among historians but what about us?
Are we really interested in establishing the exact year of a certain event or what should interest us is understanding what the Bible teaches about it?
Put simply: Are the scriptures typically used to demonstrate the establishment of the Kingdom of God valid?

Does 607 BCE really matter? Is the immense tree really the Kingdom of God?


Does Daniel chapter 4 talk about the Kingdom of God?
As we saw in the article entitled “Chronology, Interpretation, Speculation” At first reading it appears that Jehovah God intended to teach Nebuchadnezzar a lesson in humility, which he did.
The "seven times", at least for him, were seven years and this is confirmed by the whole story.
All the scaffolding that would lead to 1914, whether we like to admit it or not, is built on two simple lines reported in the book "Prophecies of Daniel".
They read “the tree indicates a rulership and sovereignty far greater than that of the king of Babylon. It symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah the King of the heavens, especially with respect to the earth.”
Should we perhaps take it for granted or is it legitimate to ask on what basis this conclusion would be reached?
At the very least we should ask why God would have chosen Babylon to symbolize His Kingdom.
We are not speaking here of the kingdom of Israel which could rightfully, with all its limitations and defects, symbolize the Kingdom of God.
We're talking about Babylon here... right?
It is not natural to ask why the nation that has been identified several times, in the Bible, as the main enemy of God's people , He used it as an antitype of His Kingdom?
If we're being honest, we should at least admit it's a bit weird.
In Nebuchadnezzar's dream a vigilante (that is an angel of Jehovah) decides to cut down the tree... and if we were consistent with the proposed interpretation we should conclude that an angel of Jehovah decides to cut down the Kingdom of God but here we begin to say that “this part” applies only to Nebuchadnezzar.
In fact, that an angel overthrows the Kingdom of God is not conceivable even for the most creative interpretations.
So another question arises: if we break the biblical story into several parts, who decides which part has a second fulfillment and which only one?
If it's up to it then we can take any script and any episode and have it say whatever we want.
One would like to give a scriptural explanation by quoting Daniel 4:11 which says “ The tree grew and became strong, and its very height at last reached the heavens and was visible to the ends of the whole earth ” and in this regard the book mentioned says, “The great tree represents 'dominion reaching to the extremity of the earth,' which embraces the entire realm of mankind. Thus it symbolizes Jehovah's universal sovereignty, particularly in relation to the earth. —Daniel 4:17.”
Apart from the flight of fancy from “embracing all the earth” to “symbolizing the universal sovereignty of Jehovah” which one would have to disagree with, Daniel does not say this at all.
Let's reread the writing carefully.
The scripture says that this tree "reached the heavens and was visible to the ends of the earth" and we note that the meaning is very different from "reaches to the ends of the earth".
Being visible to the ends of the earth means that this kingdom is famous, or known, while "reaching to the ends of the earth" (words that Daniel does not say ) means that it extends its dominion to the ends of the earth.
Furthermore, even admitting that Scripture wanted to mark one dominion above all the others, this would by no means demonstrate its divine nature.
As we will see later, several empires had the kingdom, at least for a certain period, over all the others (that is all those known in antiquity) and in particular the Bible mentions a kingdom "over the kings of the earth" which does not concern obviously the Kingdom of God - Revelation 17:18
So what does Daniel actually say?
What biblical basis is there for maintaining that the kingdom visible to the ends of the earth really represents the Kingdom of God?
Some will say that it represents the Kingdom of God because of this tree it is said that it "reaches the heavens".
Obviously if we wanted to be picky we should see this tree starting from the sky and reaching the earth if it really represented " the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, particularly in relation to the earth" as the book "Prophecies of Daniel" says but let's take this thesis at face value and do scriptural reasoning.
If the fact that the tree reaches the sky is an indication that we are talking about the Kingdom of God, then Pharaoh's empire also represents the Kingdom of God (and we pass from Babylon to Egypt… two typical examples of the Kingdom of God ).
Indeed, Ezekiel 31:1-8 reads ... “And it came about again in the eleventh year, in the third [month], on the first [day] of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, “Son of the man, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt and his crowd:
“' Whom are you like in your greatness? Behold, an Assyrian, a cedar of Lebanon, with beautiful branches, with thick shady branches, and of great height, so that its top was in the clouds. The waters made it grow; the waters of the deep made it high. With their currents they went all around the place where it was planted; and they sent their channels to all the trees of the field. Therefore it became higher in height than all the [other] trees of the field.
“' And its branches kept multiplying, and its twigs kept getting longer because of the much water in its streams. In his branches all the flying creatures of the heavens made their nests, and under his branches they gave birth to all the wild beasts of the field, and in his shadow dwelt all the populous nations. And it became beautiful in its greatness, in the length of its foliage, for its root system was upon many waters. [Other] cedars did not equal him in the garden of God. As for junipers, they bore no resemblance to his branches. And the plane trees themselves were not like him in twigs. No [other] tree in the garden of God resembled him in beauty.”
Do we notice any similarity with the vision of Nebuchadnezzar?
Both are likened to tall, mighty trees.
Both reach lofty heights, up to heaven in fact the expressions “reaching the heavens” or “reaching the clouds” are equivalent – ​​Compare Job 22:14; Isaiah 14:14; Daniel 7:13
Of both we notice the great difference with the other trees.
Of both it is said that all flying creatures and all wild beasts find food and shelter.
Not only that… the Pharaoh tree is found in God's garden!
So who more than he could depict "the Kingdom of God in relation to the earth"?
However, times, years, days, weeks, or months are not mentioned in this part of the Bible for which no calculation can be made.
Is there any other scripture that would prove or at least suggest that the tree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream represents the Kingdom of God?
Let's think about it for a moment. Is there this writing?
Some claim that this tree represents the Kingdom of God because Daniel himself mentions the Kingdom of God when he says "until you know that the Most High rules over the kingdom of mankind and gives it to whomever he wants" - Daniel 4:25
Even this assertion has no logical basis because these words are simply to humiliate Nebuchadnezzar, who believed he was untouchable but had to deeply change his mind - Compare Daniel 4:37
It is God who rules over all mankind and current governments exist only because He permits them.
This has been true for all governments that have existed up to now, including that of Nebuchadnezzar.
Even King Hezekiah acknowledged this simple truth when, praying for protection from the Assyrian army, he said “ O Jehovah, the God of Israel, who is seated upon the cherubim, you alone are the [true] God of all the kingdoms of the earth . You yourself made the heavens and the earth” - 2 Kings 19:15
At this point we should assert, for the sake of consistency, that Assyria was also a type of the Kingdom of God because the situation is similar to that of Babylon and that of Egypt.
In all these cases we speak of proud and overbearing kings who had to realize, to their detriment, that God rules over all mankind.
So what is the real reason why the account recorded in Daniel chapter 4 is different from the one recorded in Ezekiel chapter 31 or 2 Kings chapter 19?
Is it possible that the strong desire to see a prophecy fulfilled influenced your understanding and therefore prompted you to read what wasn't actually written there ?
Furthermore, it should be remembered that the date indicated for the establishment of the Kingdom of God has undergone several changes over time and 1914 is only the last of these.
In fact, in the past, the Kingdom of God (again according to the intention of this organization) was to be established in the late 1800s and in 1914 the system of things was to end.
Since it did not happen then, this date was changed from "the end of the system of things" to "establishment of the Kingdom of God" and today it has been more than 100 years that some continue to believe in something that really has no biblical basis but which has been so "armored" that if you try to disagree you seriously risk expulsion for apostasy.
It is not easy now, after 100 years of research, debate and books on 607, to confess that all these discussions have been for nothing.
As mentioned, they can serve exclusively historical purposes but they certainly have no prophetic value.
If those hypothetical 20 out of 1000 historians are also right and if the wt is right to identify 607 BCE as the date of a certain biblical event, this would still not connect with Daniel chapter four.
Answering the question “Does Daniel chapter 4 talk about the establishment of the Kingdom of God?” the answer is no .

What, then, is Daniel chapter 4 about?
At first reading it seems that Jehovah God intended to teach Nebuchadnezzar a lesson in humility, which he did.
The "seven times", at least for him, were seven years and this is confirmed by the whole story.
This is the one sure thing that few will dare to disagree with.
Of course, we should ask ourselves whether or not this prophecy has a second fulfillment.
If there isn't a second fulfillment, it's useless to write it, the whole dispute ends here.
Nebuchadnezzar gets a little too big and God humiliates him for seven years.
At the end of these seven years he can go back to governing perhaps in a slightly more attentive and humble way - Daniel 4:26, 34-36
Let us assume, however, that Nebuchadnezzar's dream actually has a second fulfillment.
This is certainly possible because the Bible is full of prophecies with multiple fulfillments not forgetting that the character we are talking about had prophetic dreams regarding the distant future including the days we are living in – compare Daniel 2:31-35
Now, if the tree dream has a second fulfillment, what is it talking about?
Obviously the subject does not change .
If the first fulfillment involved Babylon, the second fulfillment must involve a modern-day Babylon.
The concept is clear, isn't it? Daniel's account would simply say, "Babylon will fall, be inactive for 7 times, and then rise again"—this is a concept even a child would understand.
Obviously we need to understand who this modern Babylon is today and a constructive debate could also arise but it makes absolutely no sense to ask whether Babylon today is the Kingdom of God.
The subject must not change.
So, since prophecies and their fulfillments are mentioned in the Bible , to hope we are on the right track we should at least locate one or more passages in the Bible where this modern-day Babylon is mentioned.
If Daniel chapter 4 had a second fulfillment we should see Babylonian power disappear from the world scene and then return.
If Daniel had a second fulfillment, we must find at least one later reference to Babylon.
Does this reference exist?
Of course yes!
In Revelation, the last book of the Bible, a certain "Babylon the Great" is mentioned after a forgetfulness of thousands of years - Revelation 17:5
Who embodies this modern Babylon today?
Those who have followed the articles from the beginning know the answer very well and will likely be able to quote many scriptures to demonstrate the point.
On this subject too we must make sure that we have no prejudices of any kind and it is not at all easy due to the conditioning to which we have been subjected for years.

Having said that though, someone will want to put this fateful 7-times calculation to the test.
To begin we must understand from which date to start to calculate these 7 times because it is clear that we can no longer take 607 BCE and this regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
We have said that the subject we are talking about is completely different and that the departure date must also be different.
However, before starting this calculation it is good to make it clear that the identity of Babylon the Great can be reached through the numerous scriptural clues and not through calculations.
This is very important to keep in mind.
Having to start from "more or less questionable" historical dates, exactly as we did for 607, it is good to remember that any proposed calculation has the sole purpose of making one think.
If one day the dates hypothesized in this article were to be denied, this would not change one iota the logical and scriptural reasoning that led us to understand the subject.
From which year should we therefore start counting the 2520 years (ie 360*7) until we see the (eventual) rebirth of a modern Babylon?
From Daniele's account we can identify a limited period of time:
1) Since Nebuchadnezzar had the vision or fell into "disgrace" (in fact Daniel says "you are the tree" - Daniel 4:20-22)
2) Before Nebuchadnezzar's death (if Nebuchadnezzar represents the kingdom of Babylon, his death is the moment in which the tree is "cut down" but it should be noted that there is no reference to this in the narration of Daniel who indeed, he says that the kingdom would be secured for him – Daniel 4:26)
Obviously it is impossible to have an accurate date as neither the Bible nor secular history tell us in which year Nebuchadnezzar was driven out of his kingdom. This was after 597 BCE (the year Nebuchadnezzar takes the first Jewish captives to Babylon according to the secular date) and before 570 BCE (if Nebuchadnezzar dies in 562 BCE - also according to the secular date - and the period of "captivity" lasts 7 years and the kingdom is returned to him it is assumed that he reigned for at least one year, 570 being the last useful year).
However, in the first four chapters of Daniel, Daniel, Sadrac, Meshach and Abednego are mentioned first as children (Daniel 1:3, 4) and later as strong men (Daniel 3:12, 27) and all this before Nebuchadnezzar has the famous dream of the tree .
This means that at least 15, 20 years passed from their deportation until the day the king erected the golden image .
So if the Jews arrived in Babylon in 597 BCE but twenty years passed before the construction of the golden idol and taking into account the secular date of the death of the monarch (562 BCE) it is possible to narrow the period between 577 BCE and 570 BCE
Note that these are only estimates but the important date is the maximum time limit (570 BCE) so if 10 or 15 years had passed between the deportation and the construction of the image instead of 20, the starting date would change but the the latest possible date would always be 570 BCE
Babylon's eventual rebirth, if that is what Daniel is talking about, which is far from certain, would have occurred between 1943 CE (2520-577) and 1950 CE (2520-570).
To strengthen this hypothesis there would also be the fact that the narration of his expulsion is the last story referred to Nebuchadnezzar. A few verses later, in fact, we no longer speak of him but of Baldassarre (Daniel chap. 5).
It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar had the vision in his last years, perhaps during the last decade of his reign.
Can you think of an important historical event that occurred between 1943 and 1950, perhaps in some remote village in the Middle East, which could have some biblical relevance?

What is Daniel chapter 4 about?
Either this account has a single fulfillment and thus ends in the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar, or it has a modern fulfillment and identifies an individual who has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.
Indeed, today as then this subject is the greatest enemy of the people of God.



The articles can be found at the following links


Posted  by 

Comments

Post a Comment

More articles

LATEST PUBLISHED POSTS, WHO WE ARE, TOPICS INDEX

-
Image
  This post, which from now on will be found at the beginning of everything, is meant to help the reader find the desired article more easily. Each title will be the link itself to the article and will be followed by a brief synopsis or description of the content. In addition, a regularly updated   index   by topic will follow in the next few days, as well as a brief description of who we are and what we believe in.  LIST OF THE LAST 20 PUBLISHED ARTICLES A people called by His Name or upon whom His Name is invoked?   Some religions draw up, more or less at their discretion, a   list of distinctive characteristics of God's people. Among these characteristics would be the one that says that "the people of God would be distinguished by the fact that they would   bear His Name   , that is, they would be   called by His Name   " and this statement would be supported by the scripture of Acts 15:14-18.  That's it?   What does Sc...
Read more

A people called by His Name or upon whom His Name is invoked?

-
Image
  What is the translation in harmony with the context? Simeon has fully related how God first turned his attention to the nations to make a people for his name.   And with this the words of the Prophets agree, as it is written: 'After these things I will return and rebuild David's booth which has fallen;   and I will build up its ruins and set it up again, that those remaining of men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name   ,   says Jehovah who does these things, known from ancient times' – Acts 15:14-18, New World Translation «Brothers, listen to me: Simon reported how at the beginning God wanted to choose among the foreigners a people consecrated to his name.   And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written:   "After these things I will return and rebuild the tent of David, which is fallen; and I will restore its ruins and set it up again, so that the remnant of men and a...
Read more

Archangel Michael: who is he?

-
Image
  "At that time Michael will arise, the great leader, the defender of the children of your people" - Daniel 12:1   Among the angels mentioned by name in the Bible, Michael is the one who has absolute primacy. The other is Gabriel - Daniel 8:15;   10:13, 21;   12:1;   Luke 1:19, 26;   Revelation 12:7 No other angels are mentioned by name in the inspired Scriptures. Obviously both Michael and Gabriel play important roles in God's plan. Michael is always presented as a warrior, a leader, a first prince and the archangel - see Daniel 10:13;   12:1 Jude 9;   Revelation 12:12 Of Gabriel, "the Hero of God", we only know that he receives the order from another angel, evidently superior, to explain the vision of chapter 8 to the prophet Daniel - Daniel 8:15 After about 500 years, we see him again announcing the birth of John the Baptist and the extraordinary birth of the Lord Jesus - Luke 1:19, 26 This article will talk about Michele as it is precisely thi...
Read more

A millennial rivalry is nearing its end

-
Image
  “   I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;   this offspring will bruise her head, and you will strike her heel" - Genesis 3:15   There is a deep and ancient texture in God's word that has been hidden, confused, or covered up for thousands of years. Evidently someone had an interest in confusing this plot. Understanding the terms of this plot is definitely important for anyone who truly desires to get closer to God. The terms of this plot are reported, through a highly symbolic language, in Genesis 3:15 and concern the enmity between two parties, two antagonists: two seeds.  We read…   “   I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;   this offspring will bruise her head and you will strike her heel.' The scripture here clearly speaks of two antagonists, two lineages if we want to say so,   even two seeds (see footnote)   … but someone told us that t...
Read more