The theme of AlanF's two last post seems to be: If you can't refute them dazzle them with longevity and scholarly words that are irrelevant to the subject.
It is a nice long song and dance. You must be getting ready to try out for American Idol with that song and dance routine. If I were going to sing a song after that I think it would be:
The Long and Winding post, thaaaat leads to nowhere.
Will come from AlanF, I've heard it all before.
Suggestion to AlanF: Try limiting your posts to one million words.
Now I thought about writing a long drawn out essay about Sasquatch or BiG Foot and discuss whether he exists or not. Then after writing about a page of that I figured I could make the connection to the Bible and show how I had been in the woods many times before but never saw any sign of Big Foot's parousia. I thought that by doing this it would perhaps provide an answer for all of AlanF's irrelevancies.
Anyway, another suggestion to AlanF: Please, Don't keep bringing up irrlevant things over and over again. Your are wasting your time and our time by having to read it.. which no one does. We just skim it because 90 percent of it is irrelevant.
For example, AlanF again brings up parousia and its definition. I think it has been thoroughly shown and proven by you and me both that every scholar in the world from 1800 till now agrees that the primary definition of parousia is presence. And I think that you and I have also shown that the majority of the scholars agree that parousia can properly be translated presence at Matthew 24 or at least that it is not a gross error to translate parousia as presence. And I thank you for your help in showing everyone this fact.
Let me give another example where AlanF is wasting his time researching and our time having to read it. Or really skim it. He brought up Josephus and said:
However, the facts prove that the Society's citations of Josephus are a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The fact is that Josephus used parousia 32 times in his writings, out of which he used it to mean strictly "presence" 5 times, strictly "arrival" or "coming" or the like 9 times, and "arrival with subsequent presence" 18 times.
Immediately I saw that in his opening statement he had just vindicated the WT publication by showing us that of the 32 times that Josephus used parousia or a similar word he used it to mean presence or arrival with subsequent presence 23 out of the 32 times. The WT indeed agrees that parousia is an arrival and subsequent presence. So it became unnecessary for me to read the page long quotes of Josephus and what he said since AlanF admitted from the beginning that Josephus supported the WT's view of parousia 23 out of 32 times. And for this I thank AlanF.
Well, I will try to skim through his last post and see if there is anything relevant that has not been discussed before but I just don't really have time to discuss Sasquatch or the Lochness Monster or whether Pluto should be a planet or not or any such subjects as that.
What I am saying is AlanF makes it very hard to read his post by including so much irrelevant information. It would really be appreciated if he could stick to the subject at hand rather than rehashing parousia etc etc etc. And thus he makes it very hard to find anything of substance in his mile long mostly irrelevant posts of scholarly words that don't say much but are just meant to dazzle us into thinking that he is the all wise and all knowing Guru of the DB.