Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


an act of wrath—with what he claims took place in 1897— which would, be an act of grace—which proves that he does not understand the operation of the parallels; and (2) he sets forth a false date for the birth of Zionism. Zionism was begun by Leo Pinsker in 1882, in a pamphlet whose theories and applications Herzl in 1895 reproduced in his booklet on the Jewish State. That Zionism, even in the sense that Herzl was identified with the work, was not born in 1897, is evident from the fact that Herzl wrote his Jewish State in 1895 and led in 1896 a company of Zionists, and through and with them called their first international Zionist Congress into public sessions in 1897. Thus Zionism, even after Herzl's manner, was born before 1897, while Zionism in other movements flourished years before Herzl was interested in the subject of Zionism.


But the P.B.I. Editors go further, claiming with J.A.D. that the "double" belongs to fleshly Israel only, i.e., they deny that the dispensations are parallel. Even if the Bible would not directly teach it, the many parallel events and dates that our Pastor and the Brothers Edgar have presented should make candid and exact thinkers say that the facts prove the dispensations to be parallel. However, the Bible also teaches the parallel dispensations. It not only teaches the two dispensations to be of equal length (Rom. 11: 2527; Matt. 23: 38, 39; Is. 40: 2; Jer. 16: 15-18), but additionally it distinctly teaches in 1 Cor. 10: 1-14 that the Harvests are parallels, that the faithful of both Harvests are parallels, and that the calls and siftings of both Harvests are parallel. Not only are the Harvests proven by 1 Cor. 10: 114 to be parallel, but certain periods in both Ages are shown to be parallel, i.e., the years 536 B.C. to 73 A.D. with their main events are parallel to 1309-1918 A.D. with their main events. This is shown abundantly by the facts that the Bros. Edgar present in Vol. II of the Pyramid



Passages. See, also, their chronological chart in the Bible Students Bible, noting not only the Dominion Parallels of 2520 years, but especially the parallels of the true and the counterfeit days of Daniel, the Jewish Double Parallels, and the Four Empires Parallel, all of which are annihilative of the P.B.I. chronological vagaries. In Rev. 18: 6 ("Double unto her the [so the Greek] double") we have a reference to the parallel that applies from 1309 to 1918. As God began to work certain help for His true Israel through Zerubbabel, beginning in 536 B.C. and continued it until 73 A.D., so has He done for Spiritual Israel from 1309, when the Lord commissioned Marsiglio to begin to work deliverance for Spiritual Israel, until 1918, when antitypical Elijah as a class was separate from antitypical Elisha. The "voice from heaven" of Rev. 18: 4 is that of the Lord's people giving certain messages connected with the chronology. This voice began in 1876 to give this message. One of the features of the message is connected with the "double" (v. 6). This message respecting the "double" began to open in 1876 and opened ever wider, until we saw and proclaimed many details of it as presented through our Pastor's and the Bros. Edgar's writings. As the Lord's people expounded it in its features from 536 B.C. to 73 A.D., over against 1309 to 1918, they were giving the message of v. 6. The expression "double the double" proves that the "DOUBLE" applies to Spiritual as well as to Fleshly Israel. And certainly these things were taught increasingly from 1876 to 1918; and this passage proves that the Lord recognizes that to be the "double" which the Lord's people, according to Rev. 18: 4-6, taught as true and Biblical. Certainly, it showed grace to the faithful and wrath to God's enemies, in both dispensations, and proves that the parallels affect both Houses of Israel, and that, in both their real and nominal aspects. How do we know that the reference to "the double" in Rev. 18: 6 applies



from 1309 to 1918? We know it because in 1309 Papacy, beginning its exile in Avignon, began to receive its torments, even as Babylon 1845 years before entered into the parallel experience. From that time on—1309 A.D.— Papacy and those of Papal spirit have been having the double that the enemies of God's people had exactly 1845 years before. Hence this proves that the doubling of "the double" began for symbolic Babylon at that time. And every time the Lord's people have interpreted the "double" aright they have been crying out, "Double" unto her "the double." Thus we see that this passage completely refutes the P.B.I. double, and proves that to be the true double which the Lord's people since 1876 have proclaimed. Why did Editors who claim to have given the meat in due season on Revelation not see the meaning of Rev. 18: 6? The Lord's Epiphany-enlightened saints know the answer to this question; so does the P.B.I.'s master, Azazel.


In the June Herald the P.B.I. offer some so-called proofs for the near end (?) of the Times of the Gentiles. The Bible chronology proves that they ended in 1914. But the P.B.I., plagiarizing from Mr. Guinness, tell us that they will end in 1934. They refer to a number of his nonsensical views on lunar years of 12 lunar months and to his views of solar years with various beginnings and endings for various periods from both standpoints. "Confusion worse confounded" is a mild descriptive term for what they offer; and yet there is a plausibility in what they offer which, however, becomes apparent as a delusion when its counterfeit character is recognized. They introduce their Satanic counterfeit by a reference to the "four horns" that Zech. 1: 19 says would scatter Judah, Israel and Jerusalem. They say that Zechariah's account of this matter is "a vision of Israel's future," yet they apply it to events in which three horns—powers—had already acted—Assyria, Babylonia and Persia, though to



fit their view to four horns they identify Assyria and Babylon! They stated the truth when they said that Zech. 1: 18-21 was "a vision of the future," even though they explain it contradictorily as being in part in the past. We understand Judah in this passage to mean the Protestant laity, Israel the Catholic laity, and Jerusalem the true Church. The four horns that have scattered these are the rulers, clergy, aristocrats and bourgeoisie, and the four carpenters who scatter these horns are antitypical Elijah, Elisha, Jehu and Hazael.


These Editors, in harmony with their foolish virgin allies, again assert, despite the fact that they know of our Pastor's denial of the thought, that the Mohammedan power is pictured in Revelation; and they offer what we will show is Satan's attempted counterfeits as proofs of their position in certain chronological features in which the unbiblical year of 354⅓ days figure very markedly—a proof of the Satanic origin of their theory. We are all familiar with the fact that in the Papacy Satan has given us a complete counterfeit of the organization, doctrines and practices of The Christ, and that this counterfeit also concerns the times and seasons of God's Plan (Dan. 7: 25). In giving counterfeit explanations of the prophecies of Revelation Satan, through the Papacy, set forth Pagan Rome as the "Beast" of Revelation 13, and the Mohammedan power as the "Image" spoken of in that chapter, and as the "false prophet" of Rev. 16: 13 and 19: 20. This explains why Papists refer to Mohammedanism and Mohammed as the "false prophet." Satan used the latter power to work inimically to the Catholics, both of the East and the West in counterfeit of the Image's opposition to the true people of God; but Mohammedanism wrought practically no evil to real fleshly and real spiritual Israel. We recall that Satan worked out counterfeit days of Daniel. See Bros. Edgar's time chart on the true and counterfeit days of Daniel, in the Bible Students Bible, and their discussion of the



subject in Vol. II of the Pyramid Passages. Satan further, in a similar manner, counterfeited the 2520 years, the 1260, 1290 and 1335 years. Of course, he knew beforehand from Lev. 26: 18, 21, 24, 28 that God had threatened seven times of punishment; but he did not know whether these times would be years consisting of 12 lunar or of 12 solar months; nor did he foreknow the exact time of their beginning. Hence he counterfeited various sets of beginning dates for these 2520, etc., years, i.e., the heathen, not the Biblical years B.C., 747, 606, 604, 588 or 587, and then on the basis of years of 12 lunar and 12 solar months worked out through the Roman Empire and its successors and through the Mohammedan power certain events during the Gospel Age for the ends of the 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2520 years, in both years of 12 lunar and 12 solar months, from the above counterfeit dates in the Jewish Age. Through Mr. Guinness and others he presented these counterfeit periods as genuine! And the Azazelled P.B.I. Editors in their chronological drunkenness have fallen victims to the deception, and are now [we wrote this review in June, 1922] in their June, 1922, Herald palming off these counterfeits as genuine!


Their persistence in their chronological errors despite clear, unanswerable refutations shows their wilfulness to be extreme and their service of Azazel in this matter to be determined. Satan's purpose through these errors is manifest: to set aside the Epiphany work and to prolong into the Epiphany the Parousia work. Their folly will become known to all men—yea, is becoming so now. In the Lord's name we call upon all who are faithful to the Parousia Truth to repudiate these false teachers and to withdraw all Priestly fellowship and support from them. Over and over again in their desire to "draw away disciples after them" they plead that differences on chronological questions be not made a test of fellowship. By these pleas they are throwing dust into the eyes of the brethren. The



question that their course calls upon the brethren to answer is not one of fellowship. It is one that concerns them as teachers. The question, therefore, is whether those who have once had the Truth, and then have forsaken it shall be accepted as teachers in the Church. To this question St. Paul's statement (Tit. 1: 9) applies, and proves that these are disqualified for the teaching office, and therefore are accepted as teachers at the grave peril of those who receive them as such. We therefore counsel the brethren everywhere to do with these Editors what the New York Church has done with those of them who were among its Elders—to set them aside as teachers and not receive them as such through their writings; for they have not the first requisite of a teacher in the Church—meekness, i.e., teachableness and leadableness that makes one quick to learn of, and to obey the Lord.


O beloved saints, who are faithful to the Parousia Truth, happy are you in being shielded from the fall of those who have fallen, and who seek to drag down others with them in their fall! Beloved Epiphany-enlightened saints, how happy is your lot, in that you see and enjoy the added safety vouchsafed you by the later "meat in due season"—the Epiphany Truth! Let us be faithful to both features of the Truth!


In the June 15 and July 1 and 15, 1922, P.B.I. Herald, its Editors try hard to buttress their chronological errors, and do so with their usual cunning, (1) in extolling foolish virgins, from whom they have learned their prophetical errors, as helpful teachers; (2) in claiming that the P.B.I.'s fighting our Pastor's chronology is not one of antagonism to him; (3) in misrepresenting what he wrote in 1913 about his reexamining his chronology as to Oct., 1914, under certain contingencies (Z '14, 4, last par.); (4) in raising the irrelevant point of the differences on the chronology as not standing in the way of fellowship; (5) in stressing the importance of the spirit of one's acts



as so superior to the nature of those acts, as to leave the impression that the latter is an almost negligible matter; and (6) in implying that exposing and warning against false teachers and against apostates and seducers from the Truth is railing and forbidden denunciation. On the first point we have sufficiently expressed ourselves in the past. Their course on the second point is the plainest hypocrisy; for they are fighting our Pastor tooth and nail on matters pertaining to the 70 years of desolation and 1914 as the end of the Times of the Gentiles. Their issuing so many articles on the subject plainly shows, despite their hypocritical compliments, their purpose to overthrow his more reliable views on the end of the Reaping time, on the Times of the Gentiles, on the Jubilees and on the Parallels. As to the third point, it is true that before our Pastor was thoroughly clear on the subject of the Church's leaving the world after 1914 he said that if the Church should be here after Oct., 1915; if the Time of Trouble should not then be in sight; if the nominal churches should not then have federated; and if the world should then be peaceably settling its difficulties; he would conclude that he had erred on the chronology respecting Oct., 1914, which chronology he would then have to re-examine in order to detect the error. But what are the facts on this point? Shortly afterward (in the May, 1914, Tower) he stated definitely that the Church would not leave the world by Oct., 1914, and that nothing in the chronology required it, or that the Trouble should end by Oct., 1915, as he once taught. And when Oct., 1914, had come, the Time of Trouble, which began with the World War, was here. When he spoke of the nominal church federating, he evidently meant all of the denominations being in the Federation; for from 1905 on he taught that the Federation of Churches was organized in that year in the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ; and he taught, in 1908, that through the appearance in Episcopal



pulpits of the Federation's ministers being sanctioned by a joint decree of the Episcopal House of Bishops and Deputies, the Image received its life. He had thought earlier that the Trouble would be over by the Fall of 1915; and this led him to make these four conditional statements. Of these conditions two alone were crucial to the chronology as to Oct., 1914: (1) the beginning of the Time of Trouble; and (2) the world in strife, far from a peaceable settlement of its difficulties. These two crucial conditions entered into fulfilment by Oct., 1914. Hence our Pastor, living for over two years afterward, did not find it necessary, nor did he encourage others, to re-examine the chronology with a view to finding in it an error respecting Oct., 1914, as the end of the Times of the Gentiles. On the contrary, he repeatedly asserted that the fulfillments proved the 1914 chronology to be correct. Let the P.B.I., therefore, cease their deceitful handling of this statement of his in Z '14, 4, last par. In this deceitful manner they have referred repeatedly to this statement. Nothing in his writings or spirit warrants their course in this matter. They are in their course following a different lord and spirit from what he followed, and that with opposite results.


We covered point 4 in a former issue. On point 5 we would state that what they say on the spirit being the necessary thing to watch, compared with their conduct strikes us as identical with what the Society friends said of their spirit and that of all of the so-called "opposition" in 1917. We further add that the spirit of those who forsake important features of the Truth and spread errors in their stead is always bad, even though with words "smoother than butter" they seek to hide from the unwary the Satanic uses to which they give themselves. What they say on the 6th point is the old "stop thief" cry of the pursued wrongdoer seeking to divert attention from himself.


In their June 15 Herald they set themselves forth as



champions of the authenticity of the book of Daniel against Higher Critics, as though our Pastor and those who hold his views on the chronology were Higher Critics! This pose of theirs is laughable! They claim that Dan. 1: 1 proves that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year and took in that year the first set of Jewish captives and the first set of sacred vessels to Babylon. It is very easy to prove both from the Bible and from profane history that such thoughts are untrue. We will give the separate proofs briefly, believing that their statement and necessary explanations will completely overthrow the P.B.I. contention on this point.


(1) The Bible teaches that three, and only three, sets of captives were taken from Palestine to Babylon, and that the first of these captivities occurred in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, which was in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 52: 28-30). Please see our statements proven in detail above on the evident addition and omission of some of the numerals in vs. 29 and 30. Hence Dan. 1: 1 does not prove that the first set of sacred vessels and captives were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim to Babylon.


(2) The Bible clearly teaches that Nebuchadnezzar's sword was to be unsheathed three, and only three, times against Jerusalem (Ezek. 21: 14), the third being against Zedekiah, as Ezek. 21: 14 proves; and these three unsheathings were accompanied by the three captivities referred to in Jer. 52: 28-30. Hence Dan. 1: 1 does not prove that the first captives and the first set of sacred vessels left Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim


(3) The Bible teaches that Jehoiakim in his eleventh year was taken as a captive to Babylon with the first set of sacred vessels (2 Chro. 36: 6, 7). Hence Dan. 1: 1 does not prove that the first set of captives and sacred vessels were taken to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year. The proof for Jehoiakim's going as a captive



to Babylon is found in the connection that the word "also" in v. 7 makes between that and v. 6. In v. 6, as the event that occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar's binding him to carry him captive to Babylon is described. Then, telling what additionally, "also," he carried into captivity to Babylon, v. 7 mentions some of the sacred vessels. Hence this word, "also," implies that some person or thing mentioned previously, i.e., in v. 6, was also carried into captivity to Babylon. V. 6 mentions only Jehoiakim as being dealt with from the standpoint of captivity at Babylon. Accordingly, the word, "also," must refer to him; and hence by the word, "also," in v. 7 he is proven to have been taken to Babylon, Jer. 52: 28 showing that others accompanied him; and this must have been at the end of his reign; for he remained in Jerusalem until his eleventh year. Jer. 22: 18, 19 and 36: 30 do not teach, as the P.B.I. claim, that he died at Jerusalem. The first passage teaches that he would have no royal mourning and burial, that from some place outside of Jerusalem he would be dishonorably cast forth and buried as an ass. The thought of his being cast forth from some place outside of Jerusalem and then buried as an ass would not forbid applying the expression to some place in Babylon. The Hebrew implies that from some place outside and beyond, literally, "from beyond" the gates of Jerusalem, he would be both cast out and buried as an ass. Hence this language implies that his funeral would not be at Jerusalem; it would therefore fit his being cast forth from some place in Babylon and there buried as an ass. Jer. 36: 30 does not tell us where he was buried; but it shows that his burial was that of an ass, i.e., his body was left to rot on the surface of the earth, exposed to heat and frost. This proves that his death was not in Palestine; for the Jews would not let their land be Levitically defiled by a body lying unburied (which was not a man's burial) in their land



for at least, as implied in the expression "heat and frost," a large part of a year. Hence we see that this passage contradicts the thought that Jehoiakim died and was buried in Palestine. The other passage shows that it was not at Jerusalem.


In view of the P.B.I. contention that our Pastor dates the first captives to be taken to Babylon 18 years before Zedekiah's uncrowning, there arises the question: When, according to our Pastor's teachings, were the first Israelites taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar? To this question we give the following answer: Both the older Towers and editions of Studies, Vol. II, up to within several years of his death, show that he believed that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim on the occasion of his first coming to Jerusalem, took the first set of Israelitish captives to Babylon. This can, among other references, be seen from the following quotation, taken from B 52, par. 1, in a copy of that book published in 1913: "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 [italics ours]." However, our Pastor came to see later that the first set of captives was taken to Babylon eleven, not eighteen, years before Zedekiah's dethronement, just as Jeremiah states the matter (Jer. 52: 28). This can be seen from a note that in later editions he added to the statement just quoted from B 52, par. 1, as, e.g., the note in a 1915 edition of Studies, Vol. II, at the bottom of the page: "Note, however, this partial captivity occurred eleven, not eighteen, years before the dethronement of Zedekiah." In other words, our Pastor's mature thought on the date that Israel's first set of captives was taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, corroborates the view of that subject that we set forth above on the basis of Jer. 52: 28; 2 Chron. 36: 6, 7; Dan. 1: 1, 2. Compare with Jer. 46: 2; 25: 1-11.



(4) Dan. 1: 2 directly teaches the thought that Jehoiakim as a captive went to Babylon. In the clause, "which he carried away," a manifest mistranslation hides the thought. The word "which" is a relative pronoun whose Hebrew equivalent is asher; while the Hebrew suffix em, the personal pronoun for them, is here used suffixed to the verb as its object. The sentence should read, "He [Nebuchadnezzar] caused them [i.e., Jehoiakim and the vessels] to go [Heb. bow] to the land of Shinar"—Babylon. The pronoun them, "em," refers as to its antecedents to both Jehoiakim and the vessels; for if the vessels alone were meant, the word for "vessels" would have been repeated, as is done in the last part of the verse when the vessels alone are meant. Hence this verse proves that Jehoiakim (and the rest of the first set of captives) and the first set of sacred vessels went to Babylon in Jehoiakim's eleventh year. Hence Dan. 1: 1 does not prove that the first set of captives and the first set of sacred vessels went to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year. The latter part of the verse shows that what Nebuchadnezzar brought to the house of his god to exhibit as trophies of victory to his god was more than the vessels which he deposited in the temple's treasures; for the disposal of the vessels is contrasted with the implied disposal of Jehoiakim (and those with him). If the vessels alone were meant as being brought to the house of his god, the pronoun them and not the noun "vessels" would have been used at the end of the sentence showing their deposit in the treasury in the house of his God.


(5) Jer. 25: 1-9, particularly vs. 1 and 9, prove that up to that part of the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (v. 1) in which this prophecy was given, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet reached the land of Judah. Hence he could not have arrived at Jerusalem and have besieged and taken it in the third year of Jehoiakim, as the P.B.I. contend. The Lord sent Nebuchadnezzar



against Jerusalem three times in all (Ezek. 21: 1). As his second and third sendings were at the ends of Jehoiachin's and Zedekiah's reigns, the first sending must have been a composite one, covering all his operations against Jerusalem during Jehoiakim's days as king, i.e., from Jehoiakim's fourth until his eleventh year, especially from his seventh to his eleventh year (2 Kings 24: 1, 2), though he first started from Babylon for this series of operations against Jerusalem late in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1: 1). Ezek. 21: 14 and 2 Kings 24: 2, 3 show that by three sword unsheathings he destroyed Judah. Jer. 25: 9 shows that Nebuchadnezzar has not yet stretched out his sword against Judah and Jerusalem when it as a prophecy was uttered; but it prophesies that he would so do; while v. 1 proves that this prophecy was given in Jehoiakim's fourth year. Hence his first arrival there was after the battle of Carchemish, which occurred (earlier) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46: 2). Let us remember that Jer. 25: 1-14 is a prophecy of coming events, none of which, therefore, occurred before that particular part of Jehoiakim's fourth year in which this prophecy was given. Accordingly, this verse proves that Nebuchadnezzar did not arrive at Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year, and that therefore the P.B.I. misinterpret Dan. 1: 1 when they claim it teaches that the first captives and vessels left for Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year.


(6) Secular history, in harmony with the five lines of Scriptural thoughts just given, proves that it was late in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign when Nebuchadnezzar for the first time arrived at Jerusalem. The following are facts that are well attested by secular history: During the year before Jehoiakim became king, Pharaoh-Necho (2 Chron. 35: 20-24; 2 Kings 23: 29) made war against Assyria and took from Assyria all of the land from the upper Euphrates southward to Egypt. This included Syria and Palestine.



This land was kept in control of the Egyptians until the battle of Carchemish, in the fall of the fourth year of Jehoiakim when it was wrested from them by Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated Necho so severely, that the latter even feared to come to Jehoiakim's aid against the former, as late as from the latter's seventh to his eleventh year (2 Kings 24: 1-7). In Jehoiakim's second year, as allies, the Medes and the Babylonians, the latter under Nebuchadnezzar's direct command as his father's military representative, i.e., general, but not as his coregent, began a war of extermination on the Assyrian Empire; and in Jehoiakim's third year these allies overthrew Assyria by destroying Nineveh. Among other things, the Medes took as their booty Eastern Assyria, and the Babylonians took as their booty Southern and Western Assyria. However, a part of the territory that was allotted to Babylon was held by Necho, as shown above. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar, as his father's military representative, but not as his coregent, was, late in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1: 1), sent by his father from Babylon to wrest from Pharaoh-Necho that part of the Assyrian Empire which was assigned to the Babylonians, and which at that time was held by the Egyptians—all the territory from the Upper Euphrates to Egypt. Slightly more than six months later, in the fall of Jehoiakim's fourth year (Jer. 46: 2), the Babylonian and Egyptian armies met and fought one of the decisive battles of the world's history— that of Carchemish-in which the Egyptian army was completely defeated and driven from the Euphrates to Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar pursuing and taking all of the territory between the Euphrates and the Nile, including Palestine (2 Kings 24: 7).


The P.B.I. Editors claim that Nebuchadnezzar, in the summer of Jehoiakim's third year, was at Jerusalem and later, in the next year, fought with the Egyptians at Carchemish. This is a pure fiction, a P.B.I.



invention, for which not one reliable secular historian can be cited in corroboration; nor can it be successfully defended from the Bible; for during Jehoiakim's third year Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army were warring in Assyria, a thousand miles east of Palestine; and all of Jehoiakim's reign until during the latter part of his fourth year Palestine was under Egypt's suzerainty, as it also had been from the year before Jehoiakim's reign began. A Babylonian army could not have gotten to Palestine without first defeating Necho. Immediately after Nineveh's fall, the Babylonians returned to Babylon for their triumph. In the late winter of Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1: 1), Nebuchadnezzar started from Babylon on his campaign against Necho, which was destined to bring him for the first time to Palestine, after over a half of Jehoiakim's fourth year had passed. From this statement of proven facts it can be seen that it was a physical impossibility for Nebuchadnezzar to have been in Palestine in Jehoiakim's third year. If the Herald Editors think that they can with impunity falsify the course of history in the interests of their errors they are mistaken. Their misrepresenting the historical facts in this case is so palpable, that even a beginner in the study of the Biblical and secular history of those days can detect their brazen perversion of facts. We refer our readers to the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chro. and to any ancient history or to any Encyclopedia in corroboration of our statement of the case. In the facts of this case, though not in the years B.C., there is general agreement between secular and sacred history. Hence secular history corroborates the above five lines of Biblical thoughts proving that Nebuchadnezzar the first time did not reach Palestine before late in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. Hence Dan. 1: 1 does not teach that he reached Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year and in that year sent the first captives and sacred vessels to Babylon.



(7) Finally, on this point we present a strictly literal translation of Dan. 1: 1, which proves that the verse does not teach that Nebuchadnezzar reached Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim and that during that year he sent captives and sacred vessels to Babylon, but that in that year he entered upon the campaign that other passages tell us brought him, in Jehoiakim's fourth year, to Jerusalem. The translation is as follows: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king [prospectively; see Luke 2: 11 for a parallel case, where Jesus is prospectively called Christ, the Lord] of Babylon set out for Jerusalem; and [from Jehoiakim's seventh to his eleventh year] he besieged it. The verb bow, translated in this verse, by the A. V., "came," has a variety of meanings. Primarily it means to go, to set out. On this point Davies, in his Hebrew Lexicon (p. 80, col. 2, middle), makes the following remark on this word: "Its first and oldest sense is to go [not therefore to come], when the end to be arrived at is added and the goer is thought of as at the starting point, e.g., 'Whither shall I go' (Gen. 37: 30)?" The case of Jonah setting out ["to go," bow] and the ship about to set out ["going," bow] for Tarshish are very much to the point (Jonah 1: 3). Among other passages, where bow undoubtedly has the same meaning, the following may be cited: Gen. 45: 17; Num. 32: 6; Is. 22: 15. It is true that the word bow is frequently, and properly, translated "to come." But where the translation "to come" contradicts the Scriptures and also facts, as in the case before us, it should not be used as the proper translation of the word. Moreover, the primary meaning should always be preferred where it fits, as in the present case it does fit. Therefore our translation is the one based on the primary meaning of the word and fits the facts and the Scriptures above given, all three of which points are against the translation of the A. V. When the Herald Editors say that the A. V. translation is indisputably correct, they betray



the same ignorance of Hebrew as they betray of history. We very much doubt if any of the Herald Editors knows even the Hebrew alphabet, let alone can grammatically construe and translate, a Hebrew sentence! Later on, when we discuss their remarks on the Hebrew of Zech. 7: 3, 5, we will find another illustration of their ignorance of that language on which they presume to speak with such a show of authority and assurance as would presuppose their Hebrew learning.


In first treating on the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first arrival in Palestine these Editors considered that Daniel meant that he arrived there in Jehoiakim's third year and that Jeremiah meant the same, but "antedated" it by calling it the fourth year! Now they claim that the two prophets refer to two different arrivals! As a chameleon changes its color as often as outside influences operate upon it, so do these Editors change their views to meet each new set of objections brought to bear on their errors.


Accordingly, we conclude that the P.B.I. Editors are in total error on Dan. 1: 1, on which they base their entire chronological argument. The passage teaches what we above stated it teaches, when we first answered them and showed the chronological harmonies of the passages involved in the dates connected with Israel and Babylon.


As to their quotation from Berosus, whom they admit to be unreliable, to prove that Jewish and other captives were taken to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year, we would say the following: Since the passage states that Egypt had already had a ruler appointed by Babylon, and that it rebelled against Babylon's rulership over Egypt, for which reason the Babylonians came against it and in the campaign took Jewish, etc., captives, Berosus cannot refer exclusively to Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Pharaoh-Necho, which was the first encounter between Egypt and Babylon; for the Babylonians did not take Egypt and appoint a ruler



over it until after Zedekiah's captivity, nor was it until in Jehoiakim's fourth year that they, for the first time, joined war against Egypt. In this passage, Berosus evidently mixes up the events of many campaigns of Babylon against the Jews, Egyptians, etc., as though they belonged to the first. Hence the passage cannot fairly be used to prove that the first set of Jewish captives were taken to Babylon a year and a half before Nebuchadnezzar's first year, i.e., in the summer of Jehoiakim's third year.


The Herald Editors answer our claim that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's eleventh year by the statement that this was impossible, because he could not have gone from Jerusalem to Babylon and returned again, and besieged and taken it within three months and ten days, when Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim's successor, and Jerusalem were taken in the second unsheathing of the Babylonian sword against Judah. This point would not be well taken, even if it could be proven that Nebuchadnezzar went to Babylon with Jehoiakim and the first set of captives and sacred vessels; for the account is that at the end of the year—Jehoiachin, with a three months' and ten days' reign, filled out the balance of Jehoiakim's eleventh year—Nebuchadnezzar "sent" for him (2 Chro. 36: 10) to Jerusalem and after his surrender had him sent to Babylon. Thus, through a representative, he came to Jerusalem against Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25: 10-12). The Bible does not tell us where Nebuchadnezzar went after he captured Jehoiakim; much less does it say that he went to Babylon. Hence the P.B.I.'s answer on this subject is merely a straw man of their own making and overturning. Secular history, their dense ignorance of which is again manifested by what they say on this point, gives us the solution on this subject. According to secular history Nebuchadnezzar for many years—13 in all—was besieging Tyre. It was during the course of this siege that he captured Jerusalem



in Jehoiakim's eleventh year, and three months and ten days later captured it the second time through one of his generals, himself remaining at a central place where he could advantageously supervise both sieges—that of Tyre and that of Jerusalem.


Even if we should grant as proven all their unprovable assumptions with reference to it, and their unfactual claims on the expression, "It came to pass," the incident with reference to the Rechabites would avail them nothing; for there were still three months left to the fourth year of Jehoiakim after Nebuchadnezzar left Jerusalem for Babylon to secure the kingship for himself on hearing of his father's death; and during these three months Jeremiah could easily have taken the Rechabites into the temple, as described in chapter 35, and have done it in the fourth year, even as the Rechabites could, in Jehoiakim's fourth year, have fled from the invading Babylonians before these three months and still have done so after the battle of Carchemish and Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Palestine. How unutterably weak is a cause that uses such points as that of the Rechabites—a point that is entirely in harmony with our view, but for their view is dependent on such a multitude of guesses, unprovable assumptions and untrue claims like that on the expression, "It came to pass," as necessarily meaning afterwards! Let them try to apply such a definition to Ruth 1: 1 and numberless other passages! Their remarks in this connection on the present infinitive "to be" as denoting the future shows that they are as rusty on English, as they are ignorant of Hebrew grammar.


What they say of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar is beside the mark, so far as our position is concerned. The above seven reasons demonstrate that the expression, "second year of Nebuchadnezzar," cannot refer to his second year as king of Babylon, but to the second year of his universal Empire, which began in the nineteenth year of his reign as king of Babylon.



The above seven reasons forbid the thought of the three years' education of the Hebrew youths ending at any time in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. Even if we should concede the taking of Daniel, etc., to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year, which we do not do, several of the reasons that we give above prove that their educational course of three years could not have been finished until after the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon, as distinct from his second year as universal monarch, was over. But, as we have seen, the whole P.B.I. proposition of a captivity in Jehoiakim's third year is based on unscriptural and unhistorical grounds.


It is laughable to see the pose that the P.B.I. Editors take as supposed defenders of Daniel as against Higher Critics. In our presentation of the subject there is not the slightest taint of Higher Criticism, nor is there in it the perversion of the Scriptures nor the perversion and ignorance of secular history and of Hebrew with which the P.B.I. effort on this matter is saturated. What the P.B.I. Editors need in this matter is reformation from hypocrisy and folly, and the possession of real knowledge and meekness; for had they been meek the Lord would have guided them; but, following their own wilfulness, the Lord gave them over to Azazel, who makes them, as parts of antitypical Jambres, leaders of others into error.


In the July 1 Herald the P.B.I. Editors, with much self-confidence, claim to find a positive proof in Zech. 7: 1-5, more particularly in vs. 3 and 5, that it was 70 years from Zedekiah's uncrowning to 518 B.C.; for they interpret these verses and the connection as teaching that the 70 years' fasting from Zedekiah's uncrowning ended in 518 B.C., when they say the men came from Bethel to inquire whether they should weep and fast in the fifth month. These Editors hide the fact that from their usually given date for Zedekiah's overthrow, 587 (51 years before 536), to 518, were