Scholar: Dan 4. is well connected to Luke 21 because of the expression 'times' and references to God's Kingdom so do not do eisegesis but exegesis as the said scholar does.
Your pathetic claim that the use of the words "times" and "God's Kingdom" is a reason to excuse your injected second interpretation for Dan 4 is just as baseless, and almost as laughable, as your religious leader's overlapping generation theory.
You shouldn't call yourself scholar, it's a disgrace to the title.
As Ive said many a times already(no pun intended), the word for "times" appears more than 80x in the NT, not to mention "God's Kingdom".
Sorry Scolly, you just can't prove that Dan 4 has a second interpretation as WT claims, because it's simply based on eisegesis. You need Dan 4 to have a second interpretation to excuse your failed 1914 chronology, but it doesn't.