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: "I am not interested in convincing anyone especially yourself for my only reason in replying to your nonsense is simply to assist other readers that there is solid evidence ..."

So you're not trying to convince anyone, but you are trying to convince some??? .... It's so like you to contradict yourself in the very first sentence, in pure JW fashion.

Scholar wrote: "...there is solid evidence based on sound exegesis of Dan4 that Gods Kingdom is presently reigning since 1914 as Daniel foretold."

Again, you can claim that false things are true, but that doesn't change reality. Anyone reading this board that wants to see for themselves can easily turn to Dan 4, read it, and find that Daniel NEVER "foretold" anything about 1914. You're assertions are baseless, absurd, and straight up ridiculous.

Here's what the bible says vs what you claim:

1) Daniel says the tree from the dream represents King Nebuchadnezzar. You (Watchtower follower) claim that the the tree ALSO has a secondary meaning, it being God's Ruler-ship. There is no evidence for this, other than your eisegetical analysis. Besides there being no evidence for this assertion, how ironic would it be for God to symbolize himself by using a pagan evil King whose kingdom he eventually destroyed.

2) Daniel says that the tree being chopped down means King Neb would go crazy for a while. You claim that it ALSO means that God's rulership on Earth would be interrupted.

3) Daniel says that the seven times applies to King Neb. You claim that the seven times ALSO applies to God's Kingdom, and that it somehow is connected to the "day for a year" scripture, and thus you create a funny math formula out of thin air where the "seven times" cryptically become 2,520 days that then magically become 2,520 years.

All of these second interpretations you have inserted into the dream are all a product of your own desire to excuse the failed 1914 formula. None of it is found in the fourth chapter of Daniel nor in scripture for that matter.

_________

Let me ask you something. A couple of pages back, while unsuccessfully trying to prove that the "seven times" can't be literal, you asked me:

"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?"

How would you answer this question yourself?

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: "For the reason that both the terms 'times' and' God's Kingdom' or its equivalent occurs often in Daniel 4."

You can keep making a fool of yourself by spewing this laughable nonsense, but it still just that, nonsense. That the idea of God's Kingdom being eternal appears in this chapter does not in any way justify your injected secondary interpretation for the dream found in Dan 4. That concept (divine throne being eternal and superior) appears in the old testament dozens of times, and the term for "times" appears in the NT over 80 times.

Again, anyone can open up their Bibles and clearly see for themselves how the dream in Dan 4 is already interpreted for us by Daniel himself, with no suggestion of a mysterious, enigmatic, convoluted secondary meaning, as claimed by Watchtower and its followers like you.

As much as you keep trying, I dont think you will convince anyone with half a brain, using this argument.

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 said: "Dan 4 presents both the literal and figurative aapplicatio"

No, it does not. It contains one interpretation for all of the dream's elements. Your absurd attempt at excusing your injected second interpretation by connecting a term that is used over 80 times in the NT is, to anyone with half a brain, clearly, a grasping at straws.

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 correct interpretation indeed is found in that same chapter and therein you have both a literal and figurative application as nicely presented in WT publications."

I used to think you might be ignorant on the matter, but I'm beginning to realize that you are just flagrantly dishonest. The "correct interpretation indeed is found in that same chapter and therein you have both a literal and figurative application"? This is a glaringly shameful loe

Nowhere in that passage is a second "figurative" application given. To suggest otherwise is dishonesty. Luckily, anyone can open up the bible and see for themselves that Daniel 4 has one interpretation, as given by Daniel himself.

The fact that you have to turn to "WT publications" to be presented with a second "figurative" interpretation of Dan 4 is in fact proof enough of the eisegetical nature of your analysis.

Scholar wrote: "it is a beautiful thing to learn that both the seventy years of Jeremiah and the beginning of the Gentile Times of Dr. Luke or the Danielic's 'seven times' began in the same year"

One will not learn this nonsense anywhere in the Bible, for the concept is nowhere to be found in scripture. One must turn to the writings of premillenialist Adventist of the mid 19th century in order to come up with such a theory, only one of many funny math ideas presented at the time attempting to predict important dates.

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 use of kairos is always significant for exegesis for ignoring it leads to a false interpretation and a failure to get the correct interpretation of the seven times in Daniel and the Times of the Gentiles in Luke."

A) Only in your mind is the shared use of "kairos" between these passages exegetically important. In real life, it is not. As I already said, the term appears over 80 times in the New Testament alone.

B) The "correct" interpretation for the dream in Daniel ch 4 is already completely outlined for us within the same chapter, no extra interpretations needed. The "Gentile Times" passage is separate and unconnected.

Scholar said: "I have never said that Dan 4 is connected to the 70 years"

You might have not said it, but you imply is with your forced math, as your belief is that the "second greater" interpretations of Dan 4 begins at the end of Jeremiah's 70 weeks; thus, according to your own made up formula, the two are intrinsically connected.

I'lll repeat myself again:

1) There is no second interpretation to Daniel chapter 4, except through eisegesis.

2) There is no prophetic connection between Daniel ch 4 and Luke 21, except through eisegesis.

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's interpretation of the tree vision centres around what happened to Nebuchadnezzer and to God's rulership so both are related to each other."

Daniel's interpretation of the dream is written in Daniel 4. Anyting else added to this equation are a product of your biases creating assumptions.

Scholar wrote: "The expression 'times' in Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24 is exegetically significant"

This is the most ridiculous and laughable of your attempts to excuse your injected secondary interpretation of Dan 4. The term "kairos" is used over 80 times in the NT alone. You are grasping at straws with this argument.

You can keep repeating a false statement over and over, but it's still false. As I've mentioned 100x now, there is no reason to claim that the vision of Dan 4 is connected to Jeremiah's 70 years nor Luke 21. You can keep trying, but you will continue failing to create a connection.

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 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"

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: "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.

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 fact that God's Kingdom is mentioned often takes us beyond the 6th century BCE as any proper exegesis would prove. Read vs, 25 and 34"

You are either bankrupt of all honesty, or you have no idea what "exegesis" means. That a certain term wakes up certain assumptions in you does not change the content of the passage. The tree, the stump and all of the dream's elements are applied to the King. There is no fugurative application to the dream, except through eisegesis.

Scholar wrote: "Absolutely, further, these 'times' are connected to the city of Jerusalem which in both contexts represent kingship or rulership by God establishing an exegetical relationship"

Here we see a clear example of the sport JWs love playing, gymnastics of the mind. You get a gold medal Scholar

Scholar wrote: "A literal interpretation is possible although the expression seven years was not used but rather seven times which means something far more significant, exegetically speaking. So in the case of Neb it refers to literal years but in reference to God it applies to a much broader period of time"

...the phrase "but in the reference to God it applies to a much broader period of time" is your eisegesis

Scholar wrote: "In short, Dan4 has two fulfillments, one in the case of Neb a literal application and in the case of God a much broader application of God's Kingdom as proven by Jesus' words in Luke 21:24"

Here we see another example of your eisegesis, whether you understand what that means or not.

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.