There is much information about this subject on Wiki in case someone is interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks
and here ......
Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?
by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
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.
-
joey jojo
High control groups place a much greater value on loyalty than honesty.
-
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 21:24No, 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
-
scholar
joey jojo
Your comment mainly applies to cults so that excludes JW's.
scholar
-
Finkelstein
The JWS position of the years of desolation is held by mythological expressions, not know secular knowledge of actual occurring events.
Therefore their 607 date is mythological, which further makes the 1914 dating mythological, as well being a Scriptural act of apostasy..
-
joey jojo
The struggle to reconcile a belief that your intelligence tells you is dishonest, while maintaining loyalty to the control group applies universally, including JW's.
Another term for it is cognitive dissonance, and its what you are experiencing now.
Luckily for you, Scholar, there are a lot of threads on this forum that can help. 👍
-
TD
I'm perplexed.
"Celebrated JW scholars" have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't understand what an equinox is.
Why should I throw away my history books based on what one of their more educated supporters (i.e. Neil) admits is exegesis?
What does this have to do with ancient people, their history and their calendaring methods?
-
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.
-
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