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
Whether you call it two fulfillments or two applications, matters not for it is obvious that the tree dream has a dula purpose of function.
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!!!
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.
scholar
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
No need to make a pathetic claim just to honestly recognize the terms and words used in the narrative of Dan 4. If you had done exegesis instead of eisegesis you would have come to see that the tree dream has two fulfillments as the WBC on Daniel, p.87 explains "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".
Also you look to a good theological dictionary of the NT on the use and meaning of times in the NT which is part of doing exegesis and not eisegesis. So get cracking!!!!
scholar
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.
Bobcat
A good summary and I agree with the observation that there are key differences between the angelic proclamation and Daniel's interpretation addressed to Nebuchadnezzer just as there are differences between the MT and the OG of Daniel 4.
scholar
Diogeneister
Regarding the translation whether 'by the grace of God' or 'aside from God', it is the fact that the former has the strongest textual support whereas the latter rendering is simply based on patristic evidence. An excellent discussion of this subject is found in Hebrews 1-8, WBC, 1991, vol.47A, by William F Lane,p.43,n.8
scholar
fulltimestudent
No that person referred to by Chris Forbes was not me and I do not know to who he was referring.Yes I heard of Farleigh James who write articles for Awake and I did meet him at a District Assembly but I believe his knowledge of Greek would be minimal. I understand he lived in Canberra not Sydney.
scholar
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.
Finkelstein
And I say to you: 'Good riddance'!!!
scholar
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
What the one year difference between 586 and 587 proves that the traditional chronology is deeply flawed as it cannot account properly for the 70years thus faces major roadblocks and confusion as to Methodology which takes us right back to the purpose of Rodger Young's article in the first place.
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.
scholar
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.
Finkelstein
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.
scholar
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.
Finkelstein
If scholars are so sure about their facts then Why do some including apostates prefer 587 rather than 586?
Big Pwoblem!!!!!
scholar
Diogeneister
The fact of the matter that the wording conveys two different meanings so the comments in the Study Bible are helpful considering the case that John 17:3 is in Greek and trying to convey a precise meaning into English is sometimes a matter of a compromise and that is the case here,
scholar
