Thank you for the welcome, guys. Much appreciated! I know this can be a sensitive subject, so I was a little wary of posting this, especially after having my butt kicked on another (atheist) board.
Yes, at the very least, the study should provide a comprehensive view of the Kingdom, every bit as detailed as the one promoted by the WT, but in my opinion, one that's far more biblical. In my opinion, by being so theologically isolated, the WT has missed out on a lot of good scholarship that's gone on over the past 100 years or so. As a Witness, I had no idea that there were scholars who were up on these things. Lo and behold, though, as I've come to believe, anyway, the truth regarding the Kingdom has been out there all along; it just hasn't been marketed as slickly as the WT's view. And just to be clear, the view presented in my study is no secret, by any means. It's taught at a fair number of conservative seminaries in the U.S. (Dallas, Tyndale, etc.), and it's taught in thousands of churches, and has millions of adherents. So, I'm making no claim to any esoteric truth or unique personal revelation here.
If you're seeing only the title page and the links page, you need to click on the links in the left-hand column (sidebar).
No, I haven't read "Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary." Sounds interesting, though. I'll have to check it out. It would be helpful to have all the major views on Revelation available at a glance.
The basic premise in my study is that the Bible means what it SAYS. The Bible SAYS, in hundreds of verses, especially in the Hebrew prophets, that Israel is the focal point of the messianic Kingdom. What I did was follow this through, interpreting (if you can call just letting the text say what it SAYS as interpreting at all) all passages as plainly as possible. Amazingly to me, using this "literalist" hermeneutic, an entire, coherent and finely detailed Plan emerges. This Plan is hard for some to swallow, especially if they have anti-Semitic tendencies, but the way I figure it, let the Bible speak for itself, in the plainest, most obvious language first, then, later, decide whether you need to spiritualize or allegorize any of it. Why not let God speak to us as simply and plainly as possible, first, before complicating it with our prejudices and opinions? Over the centuries, much of the historic Christian church has allegorized "Israel," making Israel now the church; the WT has followed that pattern of replacement theology by making "Israel" the Watchtower Society. But again, I say, let Israel be Israel, first, and let the chips fall where they may. See if the scenario presented in plain language makes good sense, before imposing on Scripture any other sense.
If Scripture can be taken at face value, and accepted as is, then there's no need for any F&DS, or anyone else, to explain to us why the Bible doesn't mean what it says, and to interpret for us what the Bible "really" means. In the study, in the Biblical Hermeneutics section, I list 50 other reasons why this "literalist" grammatical/historical hermeneutic makes good sense, all of which I think are pretty compelling, but I'll give it a rest here for now.
I hope this study will at least stir up some serious study by others on this subject. Eschatology has been largely ignored or avoided by the ex-JW community, maybe for the purpose of not causing unnecessary division? But, I'd like to see us be able to present to the JWs a coherent, alternative view of the Kingdom when they come knocking. Why not take their reason d'etre, the Kingdom, and turn it on their own heads? We have the theology; I'd like to see it put to good use when confronting the JWs.
