Scholar: Whether you call it two fulfillments or two applications, matters not for it is obvious that the tree dream has a dua purpose of function.
The dream in Dan 4 does not have two applications, fulfillments nor functions. Exegeticaly, it has one, which was that the King be humiliated in order to prove to himself and all others that God's rulership is eternal.
Scholar: It is not eisegesis that is your problem but it is the simple fact that you refuse to commit to exegesis as I have asked you repeatedly to do so get cracking!!!
My literal interpretation of the text, exactly as it stands, without adding or removing from it, would be the most exegetical analysis. Yours is the view that includes extra-biblical explanations that you've forced into the chapter in order to make your theological narrative work.
Scholar: Methinks you are wrong because you refuse to read and study the text of Dan 4 for at least Bobcat and I have read the text line by line , word by word, paragraph by paragraph
You and Bobcat might share the same idealized concept that the dream has more meaning than what is provided by Daniel himself, but you've both arrived at wildly different conclusions pertaining to what that second meaning is exactly. I imagine that if you ask any other apologist with a similar "second fulfillment of Dan 4" idea, they too will have a strikingly different conclusion from your regarding what the "second fulfillment" or meaning is.
This phenomenon is directly related to the fact that you and Bobcat are basing your analysis on eisegesis of Dan 4. You cannot prove otherwise. You both connect unconnected dots and seek "hidden meanings" within the text in order to solve some concocted divine puzzle.