Posts by Sanchy

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Sanchy

Scholar wrote: "Further, as you are aware of exegesis then please provide an exegesis of Daniel 4:1-37. We have provided a commentary on this chapter with detailed explanations of the tree dream which you claim is eisegesis"

I've already mentioned that there is no reason to read into more than is written when it comes to Daniel chapter 4. The interpretation of the vision is clearly outlined by Daniel himself to apply to the king, where the king in fact goes mental for a period of time, then has his cognitive abilities restored, witnessing himself how God has the ability to "humiliate those who are walking in pride".

Any attempt at injecting a second "greater" meaning to the vision of Dan 4 would be textbook eisegesis, as no suggestion whatsoever is even remotely given by Daniel of this vision having any interpretation other than the one he himself gave within that very chapter.

Scholar wrote: "What is the meaning of the 'seven times'? Is it literal or figurative?"

Literal, likely years. This line of questioning adds/removes nothing to the fact that there is no reason to apply more than one interpretation to the contents of Dan 4, as you and Watchtower have done. You have no reason to argue otherwise, and as a supposed "scholar", you should be able to realize this point by applying yourself to reading the chapter without any preconceived biases.

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Sanchy

Scholar wrote: "So if the tree vision only applies to Nebuchadnezzar then how do you understand the seven times as applied to Nebuchadnezzar?"

It would make no difference. Whatever Daniel understood to be "7 times", whether it be years or months or other, applied solely to Nebuchadnezzar. Any attempt at adding a secondary "greater" application would be forced and unrooted from the passage

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Sanchy

Scholar wrote: "The connection of Luke 21:24 with Daniel 4 is not forced eisegesis but simply exegesis at its. best or best practice."

This is either blatant dishonesty or willful ignorance of what exegesis means. The vision described in Dan 4 never mentions anything regarding the "gentile times" mentioned in Luke; thus, to connect the two passages can only be done through eisegesis, which is exactly what WT, and you, are doing in this case

Scholar wrote: "If you have a better interpretation of Daniel 4 then please present it."

This is simple, as the interpretation is clearly written within the very chapter, by Daniel himself, as it aplies to Nebuchadnezzar. There is no need for a secondary forced interpretation, nor does the chapter suggest any secondary meaning.

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Sanchy

Scholar wrote: "WT Chronology in connection with the doctrine of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE is well based on Daniel 4 attested by Luke 21:24."

Inserting "well based" into a point that fundamentally has no base does not make it anymore believable and thus you prove my point with your very words. You're attempt at connecting Luke 21:24 to Daniel 4 only works through a forced eisegesis. The rest of your comment is just blather regarding my typo in confusing "weeks" with "years"

The point remains: there is no reason to apply a secondary interpretation to the vision in Daniel chapter 4 other than through gymnastics of the mind, a sport Watchtowerites frequently play by connecting bible passages that are, in exegesis, unconnected.

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Sanchy

The WT chronology regarding 1914 thoroughly collapses at the forced eisegesis used in relation to it's dual interpretation of Daniel Chapter 4.

There is absolutely no reason to connect the vision described in Daniel chapter 4 to the 70 weeks mentioned in Jeremiah, other than by applying gymnastics of the mind; but of course, Watchtowerites are Olympians when it comes to this sport.

Just my 2c

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

Sanchy

Scholar: Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

.....Now do Daniel Chapter 4

15

What happens after the End from teachings of Main stream Churches and teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses

by Alex Williams in

matthew 24:14 new international version (niv).

14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.. only one teaching will lead to salvation and the other one will lead to death forever.

both teachings will be from verses in nwt and mainstream translation of christendom to compare both,before starting the reason both translations is the translators in many cases slanted the text to support the believe of that time,for example :.

Sanchy

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

Sanchy

Scholar: I do not know of any non-WT scholars that support 607

... and there it is.

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

Sanchy

punkofnice: I would start at grass roots. Is the Bible really worth bothering with? What is the origin of this collection of writings?

Indeed, as far as WT's 1914 chronology goes, it completely falls apart at Daniel Ch. 4. The amount of mental gymnastics required to connect anything written in that chapter with 1914 and 607 is astounding.

154

Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto in

a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.

two days ago, i received a response from them.

i think this is gonna be the first of many.

Sanchy

I find it silly when religious apologists find one supposed scholar with a particular discrepancy with mainstream conclusion and use that to claim "You see? There isn't a consensus".

If the overwhelming majority (possibly all) experts in the matter conclude that 607 is not correct, I would call that a consensus.