by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
MeanMrMustard
It makes no difference as to whether Jer. 29:10 is translated 'for Babylon' or 'at Babylon' as the result is the same namely that the Jews remained in Babylon as Exiles for 70 years and the Jewish nation served Baylon for 70 years as Jeremiah had foretold exactly as the bible describes and in harmony with Josephus.
The said scholar is no troll just ask Doug Mason.
scholar
Sanchy
Exegeis of Daniel 4 clearly indicate that the elements of the tree dream are figurative such as the tree, the stump with metal bands with its heart becoming human, passage of time of 7 times and the purpose of this dream was to remind peoples that God is mankind's Ruler. So the lesson applied to Nebuchadnezzer in the first instant but when one considers that right from the Introduction of the tree vision in vs.3 and to its conclusion in vs.34 it is clearly evident that God's Kingdom is thematic that the reality of God's Sovereignty is pictorially demonstrated.
Eisegesis is not necessary for the tree dream is a lesson about God's Kingdom as demonstrated by an historical episode in the reign of Nebuchadnezzer and consistent with the rest of the book of Daniel which develops that theme throughout the times.
It seems that you have a poor understanding of exegesis and eisegesis, both terms have a place in the broader subject of Hermeneutics.
scholar
Scholar wrote: "Exegeis of Daniel 4 clearly indicate that the elements of the tree dream are figurative"
You
can insert the word "clearly" into an incorrect argument and it will
still be an incorrect argument. Elements of the tree dream are
figurative indeed, but their interpretation is one that Daniel has
already given. Nowhere in the passage will you read any indication that
the tree, tree stump, and metal band represent anything other than what
Daniel himself described they represent. For Watchtower and yourself
to step in and inject a second meaning into all those elements are a
product of your own assumptions, aka eisegesis.
Scholar wrote: "Eisegesis is not necessary for the tree dream is a lesson about God's Kingdom as demonstrated by an historical episode in the reign of Nebuchadnezzer and consistent with the rest of the book of Daniel which develops that theme throughout the times."
Repeating myself for the 10x time, the tree dream and all its
elements, are already interpreted by Daniel within the chapter. You
and WT have adulterated the vision by assigning them what you believe
to be second interpretations, even boldly claiming your own
interpretations to be "greater". Your assumptions regarding Daniel having some overall theme have no bearing on the content of this passage, nor on the fact that Dan 4 has absolutely no exegetical connection to either Luke 21 nor Jeremiah's 70 years.
Scholar wrote: "It seems that you have a poor understanding of exegesis and eisegesis, both terms have a place in the broader subject of Hermeneutics."
Speak
for yourself, you're the one that has publicly demonstrated your
ignorance on the subject time and time again on the matter, as noted in
my previous comments.
Scholar wrote: "'So the lesson applied to Nebuchadnezzer in the first instant but when one considers that right from the Introduction of the tree vision in vs.3 and to its conclusion in vs.34 it is clearly evident that God's Kingdom is thematic that the reality of God's Sovereignty is pictorially demonstrate"
God's sovereignrty is pictorially demonstrated within the vision as it stands, without any further interpretations needed. God proved his point to the King, and the King learned his lesson, thus God's soveringty was vindicated.
No extra input needed.
Your use of the vision to excuse some failed premillennialist funny math would be "extra input"
Scholar isn’t interested in a intellectually honest conversation so why bother ?
Leave him in his Jws delusions, it probably makes him happy 😆
Sanchy
Daniel's interpretation of the tree vision centres around what happened to Nebuchadnezzer and to God's rulership so both are related to each other. The elements of the dream are figurative thus requiring interpretation which takes beyond Nebuchadnezzer's experience of banishment to God's active rulership which was current then and continues right up to the present.
The expression 'times' in Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24 is exegetically significant as both texts share the same Greek word 'kairoi' which has theological significance in terms of salvation history.
scholar
Finkelstein
The said scholar is truly happy as he defeats the apostates single-handed.
scholar
You haven’t defeated anything but your own personal integrity.
Jesus will one day defeat you for going against his instructions for preaching his Gospel of a new kingdom order. .......apostate scholar 😧
It is not necessary to disprove 607 in order to disprove the Watch Tower Society's claims regarding 1914.The Watch Tower Society has already disproved its chronology in its own published materials.
"Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the "very elect" had not all been "changed" and without the restoration of natural Israel to favor under the New Covenant. (Rom. 11:12,15.) What then? Would not that prove our chronology wrong? Yes, surely! And would not that prove a keen disappointment? Indeed it would! It would work irreparable wreck to the Parallel dispensations and Israel's Double, and to the Jubilee calculations,and to the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel, and to the epoch called "Gentile Times," … (Watch Tower, Dec. 15, 1913 Reprints p. 5368)
@ scholar, mega troll emeritus:
MeanMrMustard It makes no difference as to whether Jer. 29:10 is translated 'for Babylon' or 'at Babylon' as the result is the same namely that the Jews remained in Babylon as Exiles for 70 years and the Jewish nation served Baylon for 70 years as Jeremiah had foretold exactly as the bible describes and in harmony with Josephus. The said scholar is no troll just ask Doug Mason. scholar
Oh yeah? Why should I ask Doug Mason? Does he have some insight into your trollery?
Come now, 25:11 says “these nations” will serve the King of Babylon for seventy years. Verse 12 sets up an ordering of events that invalidates the WT chronology, and 29:10 underscores that it’s 70 years “for Babylon”.
It makes a world of difference. It is explicitly saying that the seventy years is not Jewish captivity, rather Babylonian rule. It completely disrupts the “Bible vs Secular history” narrative coming from the WT.
This is the origination of the prophecy. The grammar is simple and plain.
