The Nineteenth Year of King Nebuchadnezzar...

[Kerry Huish]

For many years, many have stumbled over the date regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzars 19th year.

2 Kings 25:8 And in the fifth month on the seventh [day] of the month, that is to say, the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the bodyguard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.

We were told this was 607 BC, but history says it was 586 BC.
Nebuchadnezzar became King in 605 BC plus 19 years = 586 BC.

This has impacted and shaken the faith of a great many.

___________________

A simple solution: -

Nebuchadnezzars father Nabopolassar was an official of the Neo-Assyrian Empire who rebelled in 626 BC and established himself as the King of Babylon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II

I propose, that in 626 BC, when Nabopolassar rebelled and crowned himself King of Babylon that his young son - Nebuchadnezzar - was also held in the same regard, being put forth there and then as being the next King in line.

Being the next named ruler, Nebuchadnezzar would have been held and treated as being the 2nd ruler in the Kingdom from 626 BC onward.

626 BC plus 19 years = 607 BC.

2 Kings 25:8 And in the fifth month on the seventh [day] of the month, that is to say, the nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the bodyguard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.

So the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar - as referred to in 2 Kings - may well be referring to the 19th year of the Babylonian Monarchy that was established in 626 BC with Nabopolassar and his son, Nebuchadnezzar.

The rulerships in Babylon were very much family affairs where a named son was also viewed as being King along with the Father.

Dare I say it, overlapping rulerships... lol

This practice can still be seen going on 70 years later where King Bel·shazʹzar was considered King of Babylon although his Father Nabonidus was the 1st ruler.

This is why Daniel was offered the place of being the third ruler in the kingdom.

Dan 5:29 At that time Bel·shazʹzar commanded, and they clothed Daniel with purple, with a necklace of gold about his neck; and they heralded concerning him that he was to become the third ruler in the kingdom.  In that very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed.

Nabonidus was 1st ruler
Bel·shazʹzar was 2nd ruler
Daniel was going to be a 3rd ruler

Nabopolassar, stepping forward in 626 BC along with his young son Nebuchadnezzar would have been a display of power founding.

Nebuchadnezzar would have been treated as a King, the 2nd ruler in the kingdom from 626 BC on, if he was the then named successor to Nabopolassar.

They say Nabopolassar died in 605 BC and that Nebuchadnezzars 19th year would have been 586 BC, and it would have been, in sole ruling years...

But I think 2 Kings 25 is talking about the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, from the birth of the Babylonian Empire in 626 BC.

Nebuchadnezzar would have been around 8 years old when his Father rebelled and Crowned himself King in 626 BC.

His 8 year old son would have also been included in this crown package, being held, treasured and treated as the next ruler in line, the 2nd ruler in the Kingdom from 626 BC.

Someone being treated as a King at 8 years old is not that unthinkable.

2 Chr 34:1 Eight years old was Jo·siʹah when he began to reign, and for thirty-one years he reigned in Jerusalem.

This view harmonizes with the other scriptures that say the Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50.

2 Chronicles 36:20-21 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.

Jeremiah 29:10 “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.’

Daniel 9:2 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.

Zechariah 1:12 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?”

Romans 3:4...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”

Kind Regards

Kerry Huish

[Bobcat]

Hi Kerry,

On attempting to date Nebuchadnezzar's rule as starting from c. 626 BCE, it just wouldn't work. There are a number of lines of evidence that coincide with the historical dating of his reign that would be impossible to just change like that. One of those lines of evidence is the astronomical dating of his reign. The movements of the moon, planets and stars is just too precise to fudge, even by a day, let alone 20 years.

This (and the several pages that follow) is from the PDF of Carl Olaf Jonsson's book Gentile Times Reconsidered. It discusses the evidence of VAT 4956 which provides astronomical dating for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year. As the text of the PDF points out, the astronomical sightings could only be for 568/67 BCE.

And as Jonsson points out, the astronomical dating of that year is only one of 6 or 7 other lines of evidence that all correspond. They all point to the same dating of Nebuchadnezzar's rule. This is why Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is historically fixed to 605 BCE. His 1st regnal year was 604 BCE.

On the 70 years, 2Ch 36:20-21 and Dan 9:1-2 both speak of them as being from Jeremiah's writings. The only two references to the 70 years in Jeremiah are Jer 25:11-12 and Jer 29:10.

Jer 25:11-12 says that the 70 years refers to the servitude of "these nations" (which included Judah) to Babylon. (Jer 25:9-10) And that when the 70 years are over God would punish the king of Babylon. Since the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE is also fixed beyond question, the start of the 70 years could only refer to 609 BCE or before, not after that, assuming one holds to the 70 years as exact (as I do). Some take the 70 years as a rounded number and so start from Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 BCE, which would give 66 years.

That 609 BCE could rightly be counted as the start of the servitude of "these nations" (of the Levant) I argued in this post (and the post I linked to in that post).

Jer 29:10 also corresponds with Jer 25:11-12 when it is translated as "for Babylon," rather than "at Babylon." This portion of Jonsson's book discusses these matters in some detail, including their relationship to what WT has taught about it (for anyone interested).

This post has a count of years backward using 539 BCE as the starting point, and the years of the known kings of Babylon. They arrive at the same conclusion about the dating of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The person who put that list together started in 539 BCE because that is a date (for the fall of Babylon) that the WT accepts. The WT also accepts the length of the reigns of the kings listed.

Much, if not all, of the motivation for trying to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign so that Jerusalem falls in 607 BCE is related to WT's seven times calculations/teaching. This post has arguments whose purpose is to show that the WT's explanation of Dan 4 is just not reasonable. Mind you, I do believe that Dan 4 has a fulfillment beyond its fulfillment on Nebuchadnezzar. That is what that thread was for. But the explanation that WT gives is just not tenable.

But, Kerry, we have been here before. The information I included in this post is for the evaluation of anyone interested in considering those arguments. Some prefer the WT's explanation no matter what. If that is your preference, have at it. It is definitely your prerogative to understand things as you see fit.


Bobcat

Note: For anyone interested, here is the contents page of Jonsson's book.

[Kerry Huish]

Hi Bobcat,

I am aware of vat 4956, the astronomical dating, and Carl's work.
I am also aware of the watchtowers response to vat 4956: -

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201 ... 4956&p=par

I also know that every 19 years the moon falls on the exact same day - metonic cycle.

I further appreciate that we are all free to believe what we want.


Thanks for your input.

Kind Regards

Kerry Huish

[Get out of her]

Kerry Huish wrote:

A simple solution: -
Nebuchadnezzars father Nabopolassar was an official of the Neo-Assyrian Empire who rebelled in 626 BC and established himself as the King of Babylon.

First of all I would like to strongly commend you brother Huish for being concerned enough about scriptural/spiritual matters to devote and expend such time and effort into their study and research. Nevertheless I would respectfully suggest that an even simpler solution to this would be for us to actually start paying closer attention to the scriptures themselves.

One of the things we might do well to take note of in this case is Jehovah's words through the prophet Jeremiah at Jeremiah 1:3. Here we find the starting point of this foretold foreign exile of "Jerusalem" being explicitly pinpointed as beginning with the reign of King Jehoiakim and continuing through to the 11th year of King Zedekiah. Evidently the reign of King Jehoiakim began in 609 BC not long after the death of his father King Josiah which reportedly had occurred earlier that same year.


In addition there are at least two or three things about this that we should begin recognizing as rather noteworthy or significant the moment we take these words of Jeremiah to heart. The first would be that this starting point of 609 BC is actually confirmed yet again with the fact that the LITERAL captivity and exile of God's people (as opposed to the figurative or spiritual that the scriptures are ultimately always more focused on with respect to ALL matters) that would be experienced specifically in connection with the ancient Babylonian world power was foretold to last precisely 70 years. (Jer 25:11, 12) Historians and Bible scholars all seem to agree that ancient Babylon was overthrown by the Medo-Persian armies in the year 539 BC which would of course have freed Jehovah's people from at least LITERAL Babylonian captivity. (Or at least if we temporarily overlook that this term --"Babylonian captivity/exile" was also ultimately used as an epitaph in the scriptures to represent the ENTIRE time span in which God's people were foretold to exist in foreign captivity and exile PERIOD). If we now simply count backwards 70 years from that time we once again end up at right about the year 609 CE. But there is more.

By directing our attention both to the starting point and the end of this period of forced migration to Babylon, already we might be inclined to begin thinking in terms of two different KINDS of captivity and exile; more particularly a kind of figurative or spiritual captivity and exile in addition to a literal one. As it turns out, the fact that we SHOULD begin thinking in these terms is confirmed in more than one way in the scriptures including right here in Jeremiah 1:3. How exactly is this?

First of all did we find it somewhat interesting that Jehovah chose to focus strictly on "Jerusalem" here in this verse of Jeremiah as opposed to the Judean kingdom in general? Already it seems Jehovah is directing our attention more directly to the theocratic authority and power that always actually QUALIFIES Judea or even Israel not simply as HIS nation or kingdom, but even a nation PERIOD. Yes we of course realize that ancient Jerusalem was the capitol city of Judea, and that this alone points once again to actual legal or governmental authority and power itself. However we might find it interesting that the name Jerusalem literally means—foundation of two-fold peace. This along with the fact that Jehovah chose to focus specifically on Jerusalem here in the setting found in Jeremiah 1:3 might in turn begin directing our minds more particularly towards not only what actually CONSTITUTED this "foundation of peace" or peaceful relations between God and man, but by extension what specifically had now BROKEN these peaceful relations.

As it turns out, this is precisely where things get even MORE interesting about Jeremiah 1:3, and especially if we have even just a minimal amount of knowledge and understanding of the ancient Mishnaic form of Hebrew it was originally written in. You see we of course should realize that ultimately it is always the law covenant (also referred to as the "kingdom covenant," holy covenant," or even "marriage covenant") and the "keeping" of it that served as the "foundation of peace" between God and mankind, or more specifically all of mankind who would choose to COME UNDER or accept the formal terms of this holy covenant. (Ex 19:5) Well just in case we overlooked this while reading accounts like Jeremiah 1:3, in ancient HEBREW at least this issue is once again pointed to or even confirmed with the number 11 that we find in this same verse. This would have been expressed with the characters –yod and aleph, which primarily convey the concept of –covenant God, or even covenant OF God.

Could it be that Jehovah is continually endeavoring to direct our attention most particularly in this case to an event that occurred in 609 BC that would have initiated a SPIRITUAL overthrow of ancient Judea and by extension the subsequent captivity and exile of the more repentant/obedient members of what technically WAS his people? Bear in mind that the kingdom covenant and the formal adoption of it was always what qualified people as belonging to Jehovah in the first place, or otherwise qualified them as Israelites, whether fleshly or spiritual. Once the formal terms of this covenant are completely violated on the part of the appointed shepherds who had come under it, are they not ALREADY foreigners in BOTH a literal AND spiritual sense? This might very well explain things like the fact that in this very same setting of a broken kingdom covenant Jehovah identified the place where Jesus was impaled NOT as Judea or Jerusalem, but rather as "in a spiritual sense SODOM AND EGYPT." (Re 11:8)

So at this point we might want to begin focusing our attention on what exactly occurred in the case of King Jehoiakim in 609 BC, and particularly since unfaithful kings were really nothing new to EITHER Israel OR the two tribe kingdom of Judea. Well as it turns out King Jehoiakim actually took things to a whole different level with his unfaithfulness to Jehovah. In accounts like 2 Kings 23:34, 35 we find that Jehoiakim went so far as to form or otherwise accept a NEW covenant or formal agreement with Pharaoh Nechoh.

This new covenant now qualified Jehoiakim as a PUPPET KING that was actually owned and controlled by the king of Egypt. However we should not fail to note that the "DRAGON" is ultimately the king of ANY AND ALL NATIONS that are not in a covenant relationship with Jehovah. (Re 13:2) With this in mind we might now note that this was precisely the moment in which Pharaoh Nechoh or what is now a "WILD beast" (as opposed to a kind of domesticated one) assigned the name Jehoiakim to this puppet king. His Hebrew name prior to this was actually Eliakim, and we should not overlook the fact that the assigning of a new name THROUGHOUT the scriptures was used to represent the taking of OWNERSHIP of someone, such as when Jehovah changed Abram's name to Abraham, or even NebuchadNezzar's name to NebuchadRezzar the moment he became HIS "servant." (Jer 43:10) Compare (Isa 44:28 45:1) But there are in fact some additional things here that this information should begin to help us to better grasp.

First of all it is NEVER Jehovah's people or what is also referred to as Israelites or Jews (or even true Christians which is simply another way of saying –spiritual Jews) that experience a military overthrow or otherwise suffer Jehovah's wrath or destruction. Just as would ALWAYS be the case when the holy covenant would be broken, what experiences Jehovah's wrath or even "bowl of his anger" is actually identified by Jehovah with terms such as "SODOM AND EGYPT." (Re 11:8) Moreover this is not simply true "in a spiritual sense," but even in a LITERAL one of sorts since a broken kingdom covenant severs ALL ties between Jehovah and mankind regardless of whether we are dealing with ancient fleshly Israel or its subsequent spiritual manifestation that began in the first century.

In other words, just as confirmed for us in accounts like Revelation 11:8, the moment the kingdom covenant is violated with spiritual adultery or "harlotry," we are automatically or ALREADY in foreign exile or captivity since it is this very covenant that QUALIFIES Israel as such. No Israel in turn means—no LAND, (whether literal or figurative/spiritual) which in turn is precisely the reason we are now represented as being in the "wilderness." (Re 12:14) When we "FLEE" to these figurative "mountains," it is by no means Israel that we are fleeing from, but rather what now qualifies as "the great harlot" or "antichrist," or even "in a spiritual sense Sodom and Egypt," and we must now do this to be "AWAY from the face of the serpent" or "disgusting thing" that now occupies what WAS Jehovah's "sanctuary." (Mt 24:15, 16) (Re 12:14 18:4) (Da 11:31) (2 Th 2:4)

Just as demonstrated for us also in the early part of the first century when the "Jewish" religious leaders had in this case formally subjected themselves to "Caesar" as opposed to Jehovah, it is not a literal land mass that a repentant remnant of what WAS God's people always now begin to remove themselves from or "flee" from, but rather the religion and politics that NOW operates as a "three part great city" comprised of the "dragon, the wild beast, and what is now a "FALSE prophet." (Re 16:13, 19)

THIS is the "antichrist" or otherwise "Babylon the Great" in a spiritually "FALLEN" condition in which the foreign host king now qualifies as the figurative "NebuchadNezzar" entity instead of the NebuchadRezzar one. (1 Joh 2:18) (Re 18:2) He is no longer Jehovah's "servant" because he wickedly and pridefully forgot what had made Babylon so "great" to begin with. (Da 4:30) Compare (Jer 43:10) This "king of the north" entity has once again chosen to engage with those "acting wickedly against the COVENANT" along WITH him, and "lead them into APOSTASY." (Da 11:32) Compare (2 Th 2:1-4) Just as demonstrated for us also on the fifth of the "seven" foretold "times" after the renewal of the kingdom covenant that occurred in 33 CE, all who now choose to remain behind with what is now a demon infested and controlled religious AND political system will eventually suffer the next foretold "bowl of God's anger" right along with it. (Re 16:1 18:1-4) (2 Th 2:1-4) (Lu 22:29) (Da 4:23, 32)

Agape love;
Sol

[Kerry Huish]

One of the things we might do well to take note of in this case is Jehovah's words through the prophet Jeremiah at Jeremiah 1:3. Here we find the starting point of this foretold foreign exile of "Jerusalem" being explicitly pinpointed as beginning with the reign of King Jehoiakim and continuing through to the 11th year of King Zedekiah. Evidently the reign of King Jehoiakim began in 609 BC not long after the death of his father King Josiah which reportedly had occurred earlier that same year.

Your start date for the rule of King Je·hoiʹa·kim is based on Nebuchadnezzar 19th year - as spoken of at 2 Kings 25 - being 586 BC.

My original post proposes that this 19th year - as refered to by Jeremiah in 2 Kings 25 - was the 19th year from the establishment of the Eleventh Dynasty with Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar which started in 626 BC.

I propose that both father and son were viewed as being Kings of Babylon from 626 BC, Nebuchadnezzar being viewed and treated as a 2nd ruler in the kingdom until his father passed in 605 BC

I believe 2 Kings 25 is speaking about the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar from this perspective.

I am also more focused on the removal of the last Judean King (Zedekiah) as opposed to the humiliating of the 2nd to last (Je·hoiʹa·kim)

Ezekiel 21:26, 27 this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him.’

Kind Regards

Kerry Huish

[Kerry Huish]

After much pondering and study into this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the 607 BCE date for Jerusalem's fall is a lie.

It's taken me quite some time to break free from this deeply ingrained indoctrination.

In trying to make sense of it I posted this thread as an attempted means of reconciliation.

Truth is, the 1914 date that the Witneses hold so dear was ascertained by measuring a pyramid, basically, a looking for omens or a practicing of divination.

It was not until later that the connection regarding the date 1914 was made with the tree dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
607 was selected to make 1914 fit, giving some sort of biblical credance to a prediction that was obtained by means of spiritism.

This is not to say that 1914 was not a special date but the means of obtaining or predicting it was unsavoury to say the least.

The wise men or astrologers in Jesus day were also able to predict the birth of Jesus. Where they right? Yes, but their means of ascertaining the information was not with divine backing or blessing.

Deuteronomy 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

Kind Regards

Kerry

[Bobcat]

I remember when I first began to get an inclination that something was amiss with 607 BCE I thought that I would leave that subject to others. It seemed too messy to spend my time on.


Bobcat

[Marina]

I agree Kerry - the pyramidology connection is enough to tell you 1914 is rubbish.

When I was studying though, they told me nothing of C T Russell's original beliefs. So I had to work it out from the connection to the tree dream and Dan 1:1 and Dan 2:1.

I don't think many understand that Watchtower turn Dan 1:1 into the 11th and final year of Jehoiakim's rulership. But some smell a rat with Dan 2:1 as they turn Nebuchadezzar's 2nd year into the his 20th year by saying it is the the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar AS WORLD RULER.

There is no such timeline in the Bible of Nebuchadnezzar AS WORLD RULER. They just made it up so they could say that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year from the point of view of a Jew living in Babylon (as opposed to Jerusalem where this 2nd year was supposedly Nebuchadnezzar's 20th).

But the whole house of cards comes tumbling down on a 30th year of... of what? So clever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACZp-Csg0s8&t=4451s

[AmosAU]

After much pondering and study into this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the 607 BCE date for Jerusalem's fall is a lie.

It's taken me quite some time to break free from this deeply ingrained indoctrination.

In trying to make sense of it I posted this thread as an attempted means of reconciliation.

Truth is, the 1914 date that the Witneses hold so dear was ascertained by measuring a pyramid, basically, a looking for omens or a practicing of divination.

It was not until later that the connection regarding the date 1914 was made with the tree dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
607 was selected to make 1914 fit, giving some sort of biblical credance to a prediction that was obtained by means of spiritism.

This is not to say that 1914 was not a special date but the means of obtaining or predicting it was unsavoury to say the least.

The wise men or astrologers in Jesus day were also able to predict the birth of Jesus. Where they right? Yes, but their means of ascertaining the information was not with divine backing or blessing.

Deuteronomy 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

Kind Regards

Kerry

Hi Kerry,

I'm so glad that you've been able to come to this conclusion. It takes a lot of prayer and study to begin to break free from any cult, and also from our own paradigms.
I believe this will also help you further in your studies and understanding of the scriptures. What I've found is that when we open 1 door or doors, this can lead us to another door/s that opens into another topic/s, etc.

It all begins with wanting to know the truth. This might take man years, OR a short time. There are many variables involved.

Keep up the good work, brother.

Regards, Amos.

[Moriel]

I recognize this is an old thread, but I just came across it, and hope I can clear things up a bit:

I agree that we should think skeptically... but we should also be thorough and make sure we know WHAT we're really asking, and what we're really getting at.

So, what are we looking at?

This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.

For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, 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.

So, we're looking at an EXILE of 70 years, which seems to rather universally be agreed to have ended in 537 BCE. That's the easiest way to calculate (-537)-70=(-607). People attempt to disprove this by pointing at the temple's destruction in 587, which is only 50 years before the end of the exile, not 70, therefore negating biblical prophecy. ... but who brought the temple into this in the first place? We're talking about the exile. Daniel doesn't say it was 70 years SINCE THE TEMPLE was destroyed... but that it was 70 years since he was taken into exile.

So, let's put aside dates for a bit and just look at some scriptures, and see what lines up with what.

First, 2 Kings 25 and 2 Chronicles 35-36 give us a solid starting point, the relevant line of kings in Jerusalem:

Josiah reigned 31 years, then Jehoahaz for 3 months, then Jehoiakim for 11 years, then Jehoiachin for 3 months, then Zedekiah for 11 years, before he was killed and the temple destroyed.

2 Kings 25, Jeremiah 1, and Jeremiah 39 all confirm the temple was destroyed during Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, which was the end of Zedekiah's 11th year... we can pin those two together, whatever year BCE that is. But is that when the exile started (or ended)? No. Look at Jeremiah 52- Nebuchadnezzar took captives in his 7th year AND his 18th year (And the temple was destroyed in his 19th year), and still took MORE captives in his 23rd year. Which shows the temple falling was neither the end of the exile.

2 kings 24:12 shows why Zedekiah's predecessor only served 3 months: Because Nebuchadnezzar attacked then too, and took a bunch of captives, including the king at the time, the king's family, and a bunch of other people (including Ezekiel. Look at Ezekiel chapter 1, showing that he started prophecying from Babylon during the 5th year of Jehoiachin's exile in Babylon... clearly, the captivity had already started). This was before Zedekiah's reign even started, during Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year on his throne. (Notice this is the year after his 7th year, when he took another 3,000 captives from Jerusalem)

So, did the captivity start in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year? Nope.

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord handed Jehoiakim king of Judah over to him, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

Bonus points if you'll notice Daniel was taken captive BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar was even on the throne. After Josiah died, Jehoahaz sat for 3 months, then Jehoiakim for 11 years, Then Jehoiachin for 3 months, then Zedekiah 11 years. Daniel was taken and vessels removed from the temple 20 years before the temple was destroyed... without looking at any dates or any other prophecies... just straight history.

So, let's presume the typical reading of VAT 4956, and Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (And therefore the end of Zedekiah's 11th year) was 587. Granted. Cool. I don't care. 22 years prior to that would be the start of Jehoiakim's reign in 609 BCE. What do you know, that matches the battle of Megiddo (Josiah's death, just over 3 months before Jehoiakim sat on the throne).

If 609 is Jehoiakim's 1st year, then 608 would be his 2nd year... and 607 would be his third year... when Daniel 1:1 said Nebuchadnezzar took his first captives, and started his 3 year education before taking his place on the king's court. By 605 Nebuchadnezzar fights the battle of Carchemish and takes his throne, and then Daniel 2 makes sense... by Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year, Daniel had already finished that 3 year education and was standing before the king.

The captivity DID indeed start in 607 BCE and last 70 years. The temple falling 20 years later is interesting, but not relevant to that punishment. That was an ADDITIONAL punishment because Jehoiakim and Zedekiah did not respond to discipline by humbling themselves and repenting, but by increasing the evils done. And long before Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple down, it was the Israelite priests who were desecrating it (see Ezekiel, chapters 8-16). God deciding to send Nebuchadnezzar to knock the temple down 20 years into the exile also makes a bit more sense as to why when the Jews came back (under Cyrus the Great) they were prevented from immediately rebuilding the temple until 20 years after they returned (under Darius the Great).

The exile was still a period of 70 years of desolations, which included a clearing out of the land. That doesn't mean the 70 years couldn't START until the temple was destroyed.

So, "the thing that matters" is that the 70 year exile prophecy is correct. I agree that the opinion that the exile started at the destruction of a building is not logical and doesn't mathematically fit.

(Bonus points: Russell's idea was that the Daniel 4's prophecy of the tree being chopped down and banded for "7 times" started at this exile and referred to Luke 21:24's "and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." If you presume a each "time" is a special "year" of 360 days>2520 years. That seems to point to 1914. That's interesting enough. But it's at least as interesting to consider the same reasoning, but with a simpler 365 day "time" or 2555 years. I'll let you do the math on what's interesting about what happened for precisely 2555 years starting in 607 BCE, and then what happened the next year. That's very interesting.)