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: "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.

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