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: "Daniel interpreted the dream in the context of God's Kingdom and its fulfilment by its repeated reference to that fact in the context of ch.4 so there is no need for eisegesis."

This is nothing but a bunch of hot air. Scholar, Daniel interpreted the dream clearly, period. The interpretation is written in the chapter. If you've not read it recently, please do so. There's nothing to suggest a second "greater" fulfillment. Nothing. To claim otherwise is in fact where your eisegesis begins. Think about it critically, it's not that hard to understand.

Scholar wrote: "The exegetical link between Dan. 4 and luke 21;24 is the' times' referred to as many other expositors observe."

Are you truly claiming that because the two passages share the the word "times" it must mean that they are connected? This is complete and utter nonsense and amongst the most absurd and ridiculous excuses I've heard yet regarding the subject. I wonder how many other unconnected bible passages I can claim are connected using this logic?

Scholar wrote: "No. Our interpretation is both literal and figurative and you have not answered my question because you do not really believe that it had an initial literal application to Nebuchadnezzer."

Are your purposefully being this dense? Or are you just not understanding my argument? OF COURSE there is a literal application to Nebuchadnezzar. It's what I've been arguing this entire time. It's the ONLY interpretation that would result from an exegetical analysis, as per Daniel's own writing. So of course I believe that the "seven times" applies to him, as did Daniel.

You asked me if I thought the "times" meant years and I responded "likely", after which you came out with what seemed to be an argument against 7 literal years, which struck me as odd since your own religious leaders also teach that the term "times" means, in part, years.

______

Look scholar, Daniel 4 is easy to understand. The King has a dream, Daniel explains its prophetic meaning, what Daniel explains in fact occurs to the King, the King learns his lesson, the end. That's it Scholar. You can try to bend it, twist it, warp it, force it, you can find shared terms, you can read the chapter while squinting, you can write tons of commentaries about it; it still wouldn't change the fact that Dan 4 has nothing to do with Luke 24 nor Jeremiah's 70 years.

1914 chronology, as professed by Watchtower and its followers, is just one of many funny silly math experiments that Adventists have drawn up throughout the last couple of centuries.

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: "There is every reason to try to interpret this tree dream rather than trying to read some meaning into it for this dream is about God's kingdom in relation to events around Nebuchadnezzer. So it is not just all about Nebuchadnezzeras you claim."

This statement makes no sense. There is every reason to "interpret" the tree dream? I'm not sure if you've read the chapter recently, but it seems you're not totally familiar with its content. Perhaps if you re-read it you will notice that Daniel himself ALREADY INTERPRETED the dream, and outlines it in detail, as it applies to the King himself. Any secondary meaning would be an insertion by a third party, aka eisegesis

Scholar wrote: "There is no need to present eisegesis because exegesis of the chapter clearly presents the subject matter of God's Kingdom at least 8 times or references to it."

The fact that the chapter mentions "God's Kingdom" or authority, within the context of the passage, does not in itself validate, in any way whatsoever, your forced supposition that the dream has a second "greater" significance and meaning, other than what Daniel himself describes; nor does it give any weight to the theory that Jesus was directly attributing a connection to the passage when he said the words of Luke 21:24.

Scholar wrote: "Well if believe that these are only literal years then can you account for these historically as the Babylonian Chronicles do not present this vacancy of Neb's kingship? And if these also were just 7 literal years then why does the prophecy say seven times rather than 7 years?"

So, are you not in accordance with your own religious leaders in NY, since they themselves teach that the "seven times" do in fact, at least in it's "initial" interpretation, mean 7 years?

----------

We're going around and around in circles here Scholar. If you are not honest enough to realize and admit that your injection of a second meaning into Dan 4's passage is classic eisegesis, then you are neither truly scholarly nor seeking objective truth.

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.