by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
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
All this banter about a so called prophetic dream in its interpretation, but carries on disregarding Jesus's own statement that no one knows of time, centuries after this supposed prophetic dream occurred.
It would be intellectual honest to say that this writing was done so concerning the Jews of that time period, their connection to their god YHWH, why the captivation and desolation of 70 years and so forth.
True Christians are supposed to adhere strictly to Jesus's words and guidance, false Christians make up doctrinal pronouncements in the name of preaching the Gospel but are actually apostate to Jesus and the father.
The man who calls himself Scholar here and all of his fellow JWS are not true Christians , they are subjective loyal followers of men and their endeavoring sins of apostasy.
Scholar: Whether you call it two fulfillments or two applications, matters not for it is obvious that the tree dream has a dua purpose of function.
The dream in Dan 4 does not have two applications, fulfillments nor functions. Exegeticaly, it has one, which was that the King be humiliated in order to prove to himself and all others that God's rulership is eternal.
Scholar: 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!!!
My literal interpretation of the text, exactly as it stands, without adding or removing from it, would be the most exegetical analysis. Yours is the view that includes extra-biblical explanations that you've forced into the chapter in order to make your theological narrative work.
Scholar: 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
You and Bobcat might share the same idealized concept that the dream has more meaning than what is provided by Daniel himself, but you've both arrived at wildly different conclusions pertaining to what that second meaning is exactly. I imagine that if you ask any other apologist with a similar "second fulfillment of Dan 4" idea, they too will have a strikingly different conclusion from your regarding what the "second fulfillment" or meaning is.
This phenomenon is directly related to the fact that you and Bobcat are basing your analysis on eisegesis of Dan 4. You cannot prove otherwise. You both connect unconnected dots and seek "hidden meanings" within the text in order to solve some concocted divine puzzle.
It really comes down to who do accept and faithfully adhere to, Jesus Christ and his spoken word through the writings in the bible or men and their writings in their own literature.
There are true theological reasons why most self identifying Christian faiths never made the dating doctrine of what the WTS did.
Sanchy
Exegetically it has two meanings or applications as shown by the WBE referenced for your information.
Your exegesis by means solely of a literal reading of Dan 4 is flawed eg. where the word 'times' occurs it does not a 'year'' but 'years' therefor the expression 'seven times' cannot mean seven years literally but seven periods of time. This chapter further takes the reader beyond the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar by means of God's rulership or Kingdom which is always given a futuristic aspect.
Many other scholars agree with scholar and Bobcat as shown by examining many Bible commentaries on Daniel.for such a major fulfilment is based not on any eisegesis but solid exegesis.
scholar
Scholar and the WTS seem to know more than Jesus does.
Being a devoted JWS means you “HAVE “ to adhere to the apostate sins of men who run the WTS.
Concerning the JWS the question presents itself to whom JWS are loyal and faithful to ? 😧
Scholar Young's article is simply a hypothesis
All academic articles are “simply” hypothesis, since, in theory, if someone comes along with a better argument the author will accede to it. I would have thought a scholar would know that.
In connection with the translation of Jer. 25:11 you should consult the major technical commentaries on Jeremiah and read what Rolf Furuli has written on the grammar of this text.
Let’s not beat around the bush. You know that in my previous posts I recommended Carl Jonsson’s book. You, then, should know I’ve read Furuli’s arguments, and COJ’s counter arguments that he regularly places on his site.
You both employ the same logical fallacy of taking exceptions and elevating them to the rule.
Yes one must read the context of this chapter and you will notice that in vs.1 and vs.9 which shows that the target is Judah and not Babylon.
Verse 1-9 are just intro verses. They don’t, in any way, limit the scope of the seventy years to Judah alone. Jeremiah is a Jewish prophet, prophesying to Judah, but the content of the prophesy speaks for itself.
From 25:11 :
What nations? The ones listed, starting in verse 19. Verse 17 again says Jerusalem itself, and the cities of Judah, will become “ruin”, a “horror”, a “hissing and a curse”, and the states “as it is this day” - meaning the servitude has already begun.
The whole of chapter 27 is about the nations submitting to Babylon.
The historical accounts in the Bible concerning Judah provide data that allows one to construct a clear chronology for Judah but such is not the case for the other nations.
This makes no sense. The Bible alone can’t provide a clear chronology. You have to anchor it with external sources. Those are well documented in COJ’s book.
Jer. 25:11 simply states that Judah along with the other nations would serve Babylon for a period of 70 years
Yes correct. As vassals.... unless they rebelled. In the case of rebellion, they would be destroyed and forced to submit. Guess which option the Jews chose. But that choice was made 20 years into the servitude of “these nations”.
...and scholar has always said that the 70 years was a period of desolation of Judah,
No. It doesn’t matter what you have always said.
...an Exile of the Jews to Babylon and a period of servitude to Babylon beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.
No. 25:18 “as it is this day” - the servitude was ongoing during the time of chapter 25.
But that is what Jeremiah explicitly states that it was only after the 70 years had been fulfilled or ended that a Judgement against Babylon would come into effect.
I have it exactly what Jeremiah states in vs.12/
That’s right. 70 years ended, then Babylon is held to account. 539 was the holding Babylon to account... so the seventy years was over by 539. It can not be 537 as the WT claims.
Diogeneister
You and I appreciate that fact but most readers on this forum may not be aware of this so that is the reason for my comment which is addressed to such readers.
Scholar
