Vanderhoven 7
The JW theory is obviously convoluted and confusing.
- If we examine Daniel 2, it is obvious that the kingdom would be established “in the days of those kings” (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), not 1,900 years later
----
It is not obvious at all. Daniel 2: 44 clearly relates to a future time when God's Kingdom would exercise dominion over all the Earth by replacing all human governments.
---
The vision of the great tree has nothing to do, contextually or otherwise, with the Jerusalem kingdom but describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness, his abasement, and subsequent reinstatement (cf. Dan. 4:1-37)
---
Nonsense, the tree dream celebrates God's Kingdom as the fulfilment of the dream as a lesson of Sovereignty.
---
- There are no contextual links between the “times” in Daniel 4 and Revelation 12 that would necessitate an interpretative connection. It is wrong to tie different texts together simply to prove a predetermined, unscriptural poin
---
Nonsense, the exegetical links are the lexical meaning of 'times' and 'time' both in Aramaic and Greek and the simple fact that both books share the common theme of 'God's Kingdom as well as the fact that both books are prophetic and are of Eschatology- 'Lord's Day' and 'time of distress and 'time of the end'.
--
- Though in poetic and prophetic Biblical literature “days” can represent periods of times (or “years”), figurative language cannot be forced into a literal application. (Notice in the above quote that “seven times” is semi-literal but becomes 2,520 days—figurative—then to 2,520 years—literal. It is too inconsistent, and God is not the author of confusion!)
----
This is the essence of sound biblical exegesis
---
Obviously, with such flawed interpretations of Biblical prophecy, the third question—When did Jesus become king?—is answered incorrectly by Jehovah’s Witnesses WDJBK
--
The said scholar answers that question triumphantly to wit- 1914 CE
scholar JW