Posts by Sanchy

14

'Evolution' definition can include 'origin of life'

by hooberus in

the popular berkeley evolution site (while responding to the misconception that evolution is just "a theory about the origin of life" does state:.

"evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.

), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory.

Unpopular Opinion on Convention Protests

by Jehalapeno in

i think it's really sad that people that wasted countless hours preaching for a cult are deciding to waste more hours on that same cult after leaving it.. get a hobby.

enjoy life.. "the best revenge is a life well-lived.

" - some person said this..

From personal experience I can say that back when I was in, the few times I ran into apostates protesting at conventions only reinforced my indoctrinated belief that they were insane, full of hate, miserable, and lost.

Having said that, I've heard that there are indeed some out there that have reached wokeness thanks to the shenanigans of the disruptive/activists.

So, to each their own.

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: This is simply your opinion and you cannot prove that only one application of the tree dream is applicable but WT scholars have provided proof as I have outlined that there are two application of the dream.

I don't need to prove a negative. It is up to you to prove that there is a second meaning to the dream of Dan 4, but you can't show me any verse that directly says the dream has more than one meaning, because there isn't any, so you must instead turn to your biased, eisegetical perspective.

Scholar: No need to struggle because I studied Hermeneutics at the university

Maybe you need a refresher course since you keep struggling with the terms

Scholar: ..the language, symbolism and other thematic references such as God;s Kingdom confirms that the dream applied to something beyond Neb's experience

.. indeed, as I've mentioned previously you are seeking hidden meanings and connecting unconnected dots to arrive at your conclusion. Your God should really be called "The Riddler".

Scholar: I have no issues with Bobcat's interpretation for it is up to the reader himself to discern its true meaning.

It matters not if you "have issues" with Bobcat's interpretation or not. The point is that Bobcat's interpretation is just as likely of being wrong as yours, for it is all based on assumptions and hypothesis.

There is no direct suggestion within Daniel 4 that the dream means anything other than what Daniel himself describes in verses 19-27, and nowhere in there will you find anything about the "gentile times" nor anything about Jeremiah's 70 years nor anything regarding 2,250 years that lead to 1914. You've forced all those elements into the dream.

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: Nope for scholar accepts the WT's interpretation that the 'seven times' also applies to a literal seven years of Neb's humiliation a shown by the OG, Josephus and early Jewish commentators.

Ok, good. As you have now admitted, the "seven times" can indeed mean seven literal years, as I have been saying all along.

Even so, regardless of whether it were years, months or any other amount of time, the seven times had one application and that is to King Neb, as per Daniel himself. No mention of a second "greater" meaning is given, as your bosses at Watchtower claim.

Scholar: The meaning behind the tree dream is readily apparent to the reader because of the use of 'times' and the frequent use of the terms for kingdom and rulership located throughout the narrative and confirmed by exegesis

You really struggle with the definition of "exegesis" and "eisegesis". Please, check the wikipedia article on the subject, it's actually surprisingly thorough, and it will prevent you from further embarrassment.

I'd add that the only thing "readily apparent" to the reader of Dan 4 would be the interpretation Daniel gave to the dream himself, for this is the only interpretation given within that chapter. Your injected secondary meaning (overlapping fulfillment lol) where you claim that the Tree from the dream actually means God's Rulership (a side note: it is absurd to have God share the same symbol as a Pagan King) and that the "seven times" actually means 2,250 years and that you then magically end up at 1914, is NOT "readily apparent" to any reader, except those that bring the bias with them (eisegesis).

It is for this reason that no one that reads the Bible would come to such conclusions. It is for this reason that Bobcat has a completely different interpretation of the dream than the one you have.

Daniel 4 is where Watchtower's failed 1914 chronology completely collapses and anyone can see so for themselves by simply opening up their bibles and reading the chapter.

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: Wrong again for the seven times cannot refer to seven times explicitly speaking and only by inference, tradition or interpretation.

If what you are saying is that the "seven times" cannot refer to seven literal years, then welcome aboard fellow apostate, since Watchtower teaches the opposite.

"In Nebuchadnezzar’s personal experience of the vision’s fulfillment the “seven times” were evidently seven years, during which he became mad, with symptoms like those of lycanthropy, abandoning his throne to eat grass like a beast in the field." it-1 pp. 575-577

Scholar: The word 'times' must necessarily take the reader or exegete beyond Neb's experience for otherwise the Hebrew word for 'years' would have been used in the four occurrences in Daniel 4.

As shown here, you apologists love connecting unconnected dots and finding hidden meanings in order to support your concocted narratives. None of this actually proves a second meaning to the dream, but in your mind.

But hey, if you are intellectually bankrup enough to excuse the Overlapping Generation teaching, then i understand how you can also be deluded enough to claim that the dream's elements have multiple meanings. Maybe instead of "secondary meaning" I'll call it the "overlapping fulfillment".

Scholar: God did in fact point out the fact that the dream would serve two fulfilments by the constant reference to His Kingdom or rulership which transcends all other past, present and future Kingdoms

This is non sequitur

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: Seven times does not mean seven years for the word time means an appointed or definite time or period. If literal years are meant then the appropriate word would have been used to say just that meaning.

Wrong again.

A) The "seven times" can in fact refer to years, or are you in disagreement with the "faithful slave"?

B) Regardless of how long each "time" is, it would be extra biblical to claim that it applies to something or someone other than King Neb, as you have done.

Scholar: The tree dream has two applications as shown by the use of the word' times' rather than' years' and the many references in Ch.4 to God's Kingdom;

You keep saying this but it simply not the case. As noted above, the word times applies to King Neb, and God's Rulership is eternal, referring to his sovereignty. None of this, not in the least bit, proves that the dream has two fulfillments.

If the dream had two meanings, God could have easily inspired Daniel to point that fact out. Especially so for such an important prophecy as you claim this to be. The fact that there is absolutely no direct suggestion of a second meaning is clear enough proof that there is none; otherwise, your God would evidently not be very good at dictating his will.

Scholar: In the case of the interpretation of the tree dream, there are a wide range of opinions but I embrace that as such various views allow one to reflect on these views and then form one's own view of matters.

..indeed. It's all eisegetical. Again, this Biblical God with his ambiguity would need to apply some lessons from the Theocratic Ministry school, starting by clarity of ideas.

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: Exegetically it has two meanings or applications as shown by the WBE referenced for your information

No, it doesn't. This is a blanket statement that fails to support your unsubstantiated claim.

Scholar: it does not mean a 'year'' but 'years' therefor the expression 'seven times' cannot mean seven years literally but seven periods of time.

Wrong! The expression seven times can in fact mean "seven years" as your own religious leaders at Watchtower teach. To claim otherwise would be apostasy from your religion, so tread carefully. Here's a quick quote from jw.borg regarding the "seven times": "He was figuratively ‘chopped down’ when he temporarily lost his sanity and kingship for a period of seven years." The majority of scholars would agree with this

Even so, regardless of how long each "time" period was, there's absolutely no reason to claim that such periods of time were to be applied to anyone other than King Neb himself. You and your Watchtower bosses have created a second application out of thin air, inventing a convoluted formula where the seven times somehow become 2520 years and apply it to Christ's "invisible" return. This is extra-biblical.

Scholar: This chapter further takes the reader beyond the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar by means of God's rulership or Kingdom which is always given a futuristic aspect.

This is your personal opinion and thus an eisegetical interpretation. The dream's fulfillment already glorifies God's eternal rulership. No second "futuristic" interpretation needed

Scholar: Many other scholars agree with scholar and Bobcat as shown by examining many Bible commentaries on Daniel.for such a major fulfilment is based not on any eisegesis but solid exegesis.

....and a greater many other scholars would disagree. This appeal to authority means nothing.

Also, you and Bobcat do not agree at all. Your injected secondary interpretation vary wildly from one another. Go ahead and read his comments on that blog. You've each arrived at your own views via your own opinions (aka eisegesis). Thus the striking difference

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: 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.

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: "Chap.4 is centrally concerned with the kingship of Nebuchadnezzer and the kingship or rule of the Most High God or of the King, Lord of Heaven".

This statement does not indicate two fulfillments. The rulership of God is confirmed within the first and only fulfillment of Dan 4, as King Neb had to recognize.

Also, it might help for you to do research into what eisegesis means. Here's the Wikipedia page for your reference: LINK

Bobcat wrote: my research on the topic of Daniel chapter 4 has also led me to the conclusion that it has a dual fulfillment.

You have as much chance of being wrong as Scholar does for one simple reason: you both are commiting Narrative Fallacy

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: 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.