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: 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.

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

The discrepancy is in fact one whole year of 12 months so it shows that traditional chronology is simply not accurate so better stick to the definite year of 607 BCE.

Terrible argument.

607 faces way more roadblocks and discrepancies than 586/87, both historically and biblically.

Beyond this, as discussed for the past ten pages, WT chronology regarding 1914 collapses completely at the attempt to connect Dan 4 to Luke 21

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: Luke 21:24 is an expression of the Gentile Times as elucidated by the prophet Daniel recorded in his ch.4 with the tree dream because it is centered on Jerusalem being trampled on as an expression of God's Kingdom so get the facts right.

Nope. The tree dream is centered around King Neb and his humiliation resulting in him glorifying God's sovereignty. Jerusalem is never mentioned once in Dan 4, not even alluded to.

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: Finally, you have sen the light for any reader can see for himself/herself that Dan 4 must have both a literal and figurative fulfilment because of the literary structure of the tree dream, context within the book of Daniel and the terms used in Dan 4.

Nope, this is just your opinion, as is thankfully obvious to most. It is in plain sight that Daniel 4 has no figurative fulfillment unless you apply an eisegetical analysis.You can't prove otherwise, as hard as you keep trying.

Scholar :his humiliation must have occurred after his 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

Even with your own flawed chronology you still manage to contradict your original statement that the "seven times" and "seventy years" share 607 in common. They don't.

Scholar: The point of the dream was Kingship and as we are encouraged to discern the 'times' in the course of history accompanied with such prophetic formulae then such calculations are proper as part of Salvation History which includes and reveals the doctrine of the Gentile Times-Like 21:24.

Nope. Now you've just included, from your own bias, an extra-biblical interpretation. Perhaps you should consider the words of Proverbs 30:6: "Do not add to his words, he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

Your original statement from previous comments was correct. The purpose of the dream was to humiliate the King "until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants" (Dan 4:32), which occured at the end of the seven times, when he "looked up to the heavens" and had his understanding return to him. (Dan 4:34)

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: The tree represented both Neb's world rulership and the universal sovereignty of Jehovah God as expressed by the Kingdom of God as recognized by Bible commentators, expositors and the celebrated WT scholars.

..indeed. You have to turn to these extra-biblical eisegetical analysis in order to come to such a conclusion, since the Bible itself suggest no such thing. Anyone interested in the matter can easily open up to Dan 4 and see for themselves how foolish it would be to claim the dream has more than one interpretation

Scholar: that chapter is explicit in the fact that both events began at the same time in 607 BCE.

King Nebuchadnezzar didn't even begin to reign until 605 BCE and thus the dream's fulfillment where the the king was "given vegetation to eat just like bulls" could't have occurred in 607, as you claim.

Scholar: The point of the dream was to show Neb that he was subjected to a far greater rulership of the Heavens, God's Kingdom or sovereignty.

Agreed. This was the point of the dream. It was NOT, however, for creating a math formula to establish the date of Christ's "invisible" return some millennia in its future, as adherents to Watchtower theology claim.

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: You cannot separate the kingdom of God in Dan 4 from Neb's humiliation for that was then the point of the dream for to do so shows that you lack exegetical skills.

I haven't separated the kingdom from Dan 4, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm just pointing out your false claim that there is a second meaning for the dream. The Tree does not represent said Kingdom, as you and Watchtower claim, and there's no way you can prove otherwise.

Scholar: There is such an explicit connection, just do the exegesis of Dan.4.

Nope, this is a lie. There is no such "explicit" connection between the "seven weeks" and the "seventy years". This is just a product of your eisegetical analysis, as provided by your religious leaders..

Scholar: Neb's humiliation for that was then the point of the dream

Exactly. I'm glad we finally agree. That was the point of the dream. It was not to establish some funny math formula to determine when Jesus would invisibly return.

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 mention of Gid's Kingdom/rulership is thematic in not only ch.4 but the entire book of Daniel so it plays a major role in the interpretation of the tree dream.

The role God's Kingdom or rulership plays in the dream is already outlined within the chapter by Daniel himself. No second interpretation needed. Nowhere does the chapter describe the dream's Tree as representing the Kingdom, as Watchtower's followers claim. The tree only represents King Neb. Anyone can open up their Bibles and see this for themselves.

Scholar wrote: No , the connection between both period is grounded within the test such as the OG translation of Dan.4 which makes the connection explicit

There is no such "explicit" connection.

Scholar wrote: The prestigious commentary by Collins makes the point quite clear but as you do not do exegesis i understand why you fail to understand the matter,

Your eisegetical analysis and preferred commentary do nothing to prove a connection between the 70 years of Jeremiah, which applied to "these nations" and Daniel 4's "seven times" which applied to King Neb. You can't prove a connection exegetically, because there is none.