18. Jehoiachin, Belshazzar, and the Fall of Babylon 

Young man. Study the scripture. It’s the most precious thing on earth. May Jesus bless you.

Thank you! ...and blessings to you and yours as well.

​@@GoreBruce in Ezekiel 4:4-7 do you know what the 430 years represents?

@@gmstruthbetold1447 It has been a matter of some speculation: I give you the following from the Pulpit Commentary: Jerome and Origen bear witness to the fact that most copies of the former gave 190 years, some 150 and others, agreeing with the Hebrew, 390. The first of these numbers fits in with the thought that Ezekiel's act was to represent the period of the punishment of the northern kingdom. That punishment starts from the first captivity under Pekah about B.C. 734. Reckoning from that date, the 190 years bring us to about B.C. 544. The punishment of Judah, in like manner, dates from the destruction of Jerusalem in B.C. 586, and the forty years bring us to B.C. 546, a date so near the other, that, in the round numbers which Ezekiel uses, they may be taken as practically coinciding. It was to that date that the prophet, perhaps, unacquainted with Jeremiah's seventy years (Jer 25:12), with a different starting point ( B.C. 600) and terminus ( B.C. 536), looked forward as the starting point of the restoration of Israel. It is obvious that Ezekiel contemplated the contemporaneous restoration of Israel and Judah (Ezek 16:53-55; 37:19-22; 47:13), as indeed Isaiah also seems to do (11:13,14), and Jeremiah (31:6,12,27). The teaching of Ezekiel's acts, then, had two distinct purposes.

You are very welcome! Thanks for the encouragement!

Can you recommend a clear-ish history of the earliest recorded Indian history? I understand the land was often divided but I know almost nothing of Indian history now. I thank you in advance.

You, my friend, are most welcome!

I agree.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Yeah, that was a so true, why would you embarrass the guy who built the city and made it a superpower

So everyone engaged in propaganda but the Israelites… riiiiiight

Whats funny is its an actual identified disease now too

+blacckz A good resource is Joan Oates, Babylon (Thames and Hudson) and the sources cited therein.

***** Thanks alot....I'd look into that Sir

Uh, the Holy Mother didn't come from Solomon's line at all, but rather King David's son *Nathan*. You may be thinking of her husband, who contributed no DNA to the Son of God. At least according to Holy Writ.

It was common to refer to an earlier ancestor as the 'father' of the person in question. For a detailed discussion of the rulers of Babylon, see Joan Oates, 'Babylon.'

@@GoreBruce Thanks for answering! Could this be the reason why the children of Israel said in John 8:39 that Abraham is their father? In your conment you said it was common for an early ancestor but Abraham was a very distant ancestor. In the context of the Chapter were they reffering to a spirutual father or was the same as Daniel calling Nebuchandezzar as the father of Belshazzar in a sense of liniage or ancestor tree not necessary as an spiritual father? I also observed that Abraham Isaac and Iacob were mentioned as the parents of Israel (Deut. 6:10; 9:5) even though they were long gone.

@@andreitabacaru8378 The Jewish people believed that having Abraham as their biological ancestor made Abraham their 'father' and therefore made them the 'chosen people.' The New Testament rejects the idea that the chosen people descend biologically from Abraham, and declares rather that the 'seed of Abraham' are those who place their faith in Christ (e.g., Galatians 3).

Thank you! and thanks for the clarification!

@@GoreBruce you are welcome... I guess they considered 50+ to be old.... Smh... That's far from old...

Found it thanks Bruce

You can find this entire series as a playlist at my channel (historical context of the Bible). Thanks for your interest!ru-vid.complaylists?view_as=subscriber

That is a credit to the artist.

Yes, he certainly was, but evidence from the many references to Jehoiakim in Jeremiah strongly suggested Jehoiakim was reinstated sometime later, bound by loyalty oath to Nebuchadnezzar, an oath he eventually broke, giving rise to the subsequent attack when he died, possibly (but not necessarily) by suicide.

Daniel was giving an INTERPRETATION, not just a translation. Remember, "the spirit of the holy gods" was with Daniel. He wasn't just a translator.

Post trib pre-wrath? I don't see any other option.

The term 'father' is often applied to earlier generations.

Belshazzar is the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. After all the Israelites are only in exile for 70 years before they can return.

Interesting!

The 6th vial or, drying up of the Euphrates River represents the drying up of the Ottoman Empire. In 1917 Palestine was retaken so the Jew could return because the Jew has to be in the land before Jesus Christ can return.

Yes, most of Old Testament history was written well after the events described. This historians based their accounts on written and oral tradition that they compiled. That, of course, applies to most of written history, whether biblical or not!

Yes, of course. I'm am using the spelling commonly employed in English translations of the Old Testament.

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. It was not uncommon to call a man the 'son' of one of his ancestors.

Bruce Gore makes sense. I wondered if Daniel 7 was prophetic or historic to his time since he saw it in Belshazzar’s time the vision of 4 beasts of which the first represented Babylon. I mean, what’s the point of showing something that’s been fulfilled already and for that reason Daniel is in Babylon already? I also wonder if there is a difference between heads and horns? Horns are used for defence for animals, so that might might be a symbolism of military where heads might be more for authority. But the 3rd beast has 4 heads and 4 wings whereas in Daniel 8 the he-goat has 4 horns. But in Revelation the beast and the Dragon have heads and horns. Acts and Revelation, by the way correlate to each other in the Biblewheel (see my videos) since Acts is the 22nd book of the 2nd cycle and Revelation is the 22nd book of the 3rd cycle. And Acts 12 links/relates to Revelation 12, whereas Acts 13 links to Revelation 13 with Elymas/Barjesus the sorcerer tries to sway Sergius Paulus from listening Paul. Revelation 13, of course mentions the false prophet.

@@GoreBruce just for the sake of clarification sir. You said we don’t know Nabonidus’ claim to the throne. How are we sure that Belshazzar is Nebuchadnezzar’s descendant? Just to know. Thank you sir

@@yimgajude5340 Babylonian records are sketchy. Few doubt that Nabonidus had a legitimate claim, probably by marriage, but the precise details are obscure. For current unbiased and scholarly reflection on the current state of our knowledge as to ancient Babylon, consult Joan Oates, Babylon.

@@GoreBruce thank you sir

The fall of Jerusalem in 586 is universally accepted by virtually every scholar of the Old Testament, including those of liberal, conservative, and Jewish frames of reference. The JW rejection of the date is not based on historical evidence, but on a priori assumptions that are necessary to support their otherwise misguided interpretative scheme.

Certainly, although the Hebrew scriptures are much more selective because of the focus on redemptive history.