Posts by scholar

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.

scholar

Sanchy

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. The elements of the dream are figurative thus requiring interpretation which takes beyond Nebuchadnezzer's experience of banishment to God's active rulership which was current then and continues right up to the present.

The expression 'times' in Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24 is exegetically significant as both texts share the same Greek word 'kairoi' which has theological significance in terms of salvation history.

scholar

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.

scholar

Sanchy

Exegeis of Daniel 4 clearly indicate that the elements of the tree dream are figurative such as the tree, the stump with metal bands with its heart becoming human, passage of time of 7 times and the purpose of this dream was to remind peoples that God is mankind's Ruler. 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 demonstrated.

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.

It seems that you have a poor understanding of exegesis and eisegesis, both terms have a place in the broader subject of Hermeneutics.

scholar

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.

scholar

MeanMrMustard

It makes no difference as to whether Jer. 29:10 is translated 'for Babylon' or 'at Babylon' as the result is the same namely that the Jews remained in Babylon as Exiles for 70 years and the Jewish nation served Baylon for 70 years as Jeremiah had foretold exactly as the bible describes and in harmony with Josephus.

The said scholar is no troll just ask Doug Mason.

scholar

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.

scholar

Finkelstein

What the said scholar knows is that Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE and not 586 or 587 BCE for the latter two years are impossible. In all of the information, you have just posted one solitary fact stands out and that is that there is no mention of the 70 years of Jeremiah which falsifies all of that information. So sad! Too bad!

scholar

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.

scholar

Sanchy

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

-----

Indeed Daniel interpreted the dream and that interpretation benefits us today because it teaches about God's kingdom as part of salvation history. 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.

------

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?

====

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.If you like I can refer you to what scholars have said on this matter as presented in Bible commentaries. By the way do you consult leading Bible commentaries on this subject as the said scholar does?

-----

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. .

----

Scholar is not dense. 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.

-------

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.For this reason many expositors have thought similarly labelling this as the Gentile times ending in 1914 CE beginning in 607 BCE according to our wondrous bible Chronology.

scholar

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.

scholar

joey jojo

Yes it is scholar who keeps these threads active.

scholar

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.

scholar

Finkelstein

The language and terms are not mythological but quite specific as verified by the Chronicler, Ezra the historian for the land had to pay off its sabbaths and also attached to the period of Exile of 70 years.

Thus the calculation of 607 BCE is rooted on a solid historical basis as confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus and others.

scholar

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.

scholar

joey jojo

Your comment mainly applies to cults so that excludes JW's.

scholar

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.

scholar

Sanchy

It is you that is going round in circles for you are unable to accept the basic principles of proper exegesis.

his 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

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.

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

No, for such reference lies at the very heart of the dream and cannot be ignored if one is committed to proper exegesis otherwise such ignorance is proof is that it is you that is doing eisegesis. The exegetical link between Dan. 4 and luke 21;24 is the' times' referred to as many other expositors observe.

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
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.

scholar

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.

scholar

Sanchy

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

scholar