by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
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
FinkelsteinThe 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 think I'm going to leave scholar to his nonsensical idiocy basked in intellectual dishonesty.
He's labeled himself a bible scholar but in reality he's just a ideological supporter / yes man for the corrupt Watchtower Corporation/JWorg.
JWS and their leaders are just commercialized false prophets to whom one day they are going to be judged .
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
Finkelstein
And I say to you: 'Good riddance'!!!
scholar
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.
Hi scholar,
607 aside (I'm for 587), but that aside, my research on the topic of Daniel chapter 4 has also led me to the conclusion that it has a dual fulfillment. I posted on it here (off site). The whole thread is on that topic. But that particular post gets to the main point of why a dual fulfillment.
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
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
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
WT had Bible scholars in the 40s or at any time -- shocking. Thought their interpretations were promoted to fit their agenda of dooms day prophecies.
