Dishonest WTS version of ?Presence?
As a courtesy of AlanF, I was directed to the August 15, 1996 Watchtower article, pages 9-14, titled: ?Jesus? Coming or Jesus? Presence ? Which?? This article was also referenced by the poster named ?Scholar? in his defense of the New World Translation use of ?Presence? at Matthew 24:3 ... and hence, the Watchtower?s interpretation of this ?presence? to mean an invisible presence of Jesus second coming ? taught by the Society to have taken place in 1914.
AlanF: Scans of the August 15, 1996 WT article here: http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p9.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p10.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p11.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p12.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p13.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/wt_15_aug_96_p14.jpg
For an in-depth debate Ref. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/69867/1.ashx
The poster ?Scholar? cited this Watchtower article as a comprehensive treatment of the issues surrounding ?Presence? v ?Coming? and the Greek word, ?parousia.? I was delighted that there would be such an article, and I equally expected it to be substantive ... but, as usual, Watchtower material is on the ?light? side ... in fact, this article was very disappointing. Here are the weaknesses of this article:
a. The article states: ?... Matthew used a different word, a noun found nowhere else in the Gospels: parousia.? On the surface, this appears impressive to the novice JW reader not familiar with Greek, or not aware of the shifty tactics of the Society?s writers. Yes, the word ?presence / parousia? is not used in other Gospel accounts, which should immediately tell the reader that other Gospel writers had no all-important issue to stress any kind of ?invisible presence? as defined by 20th century Watchtower writers ... the fact that only Matthew used ?parousia? in his Gospel account tells us exactly that. However, there is yet another facet to this. ...
b. The word ?parousia? or its variations appears a total of 21 times (as found in Strong?s Concordance) in the New Testament (Christian Scriptures) with 18 of these in non-Gospel accounts ... showing that its use is more common than implied by the WTS. While they did not deny its use in other texts, they conveniently omitted that information by stating that it was used in no other Gospel account ... giving the novice reader of their article the impression that its use is unique to Matthew 24. Where else is this word used, and in what context? ... Many of the uses shown below are with respect to Jesus ?coming? or return. It is intellectually dishonest to contain comment on ?parousia? to Matthew 24 without giving due attention to where it is used in other Christian texts.
c. The following verses use the word ?parousia.? The King James Version (AV) ,and other Bible versions, translates them ALL as ?coming? with one exception found in 2 Corinthians 10:10. The New World Translation (NWT) always translates these verses as ?presence.?
BOOK Verse KJV / AV NWT BOOK Verse KJV / AV NWT Matthew 24:3 Coming Presence 1 Thes. 4:15 Coming Presence Matthew 24:7 Coming Presence 1 Thes. 5:23 Coming Presence Matthew 24:37 Coming Presence 2 Thes. 2:01 Coming Presence 1 Cor. 15:23 Coming Presence 2 Thes. 2:08 Coming Presence 1 Cor. 16:17 Coming Presence 2 Thes. 2:09 Coming Presence 2 Cor. 7:06 Coming Presence James 5:07 Coming Presence 2 Cor. 7:07 Coming Presence 2 Peter 1:16 Coming Presence 2 Cor. 10:10 Presence Presence 2 Peter 3:04 Coming Presence Phil. 1:26 Coming Presence 2 Peter 3:12 Coming Presence 1 Thes. 2:19 Coming Presence 1 John 2:28 Coming Presence 1 Thes. 3:13 Coming Presence
Why is it that the WTS translates ?parousia? as ?presence? in every case where the King James and other translations use the word ?coming?? And if you examine the context in each situation, you will see that ?presence? is not always fitting. Why would not the Watchtower NWT take a higher road and use ?coming? where appropriate? Or could it be that they were making an ?all or nothing? use of ?presence? to bolster their case for its use?
d. The word ?COME? was cited by the Watchtower in its subject article. They said, ?In the first 23 chapters of Matthew, over 80 times we find a common Greek verb for ?come,? which is er-kho-mai.? The Society went on to be sure to distinguish that ?parousia? is a noun, rather than a ?verb.? Notice that they do not cite the word ?COMING.? Why would that be important? First we need to examine the Greek word they cite: Erkhomai. It is found in Strong?s Ref. 1537 and 2064. Yes, ?erkhomai? is a word for "come," as are 69 other Greek words for ?come? or close variations. Examine the references below:
Strong?s Concordance - Greek Ref. #33, 191, 305, 565, 864, 1096, 1204, 1205, 1224, 1237, 1330, 1448, 1511, 1525, 1531, 1607, 1684, 1764, 1831, 1880, 1904, 1910, 1975, 1994, 1998, 2049, 2064* (*Ref. by the Society) 2071, 2076, 2113, 2240, 2597, 2638, 2647, 2658, 2673, 2718, 2944, 2983, 3134, 3195, 3415, 3719, 3801, 3854, 3918, 3922, 3928, 3973, 4022, 4031, 4130, 4137, 4301, 4331, 4334, 4836, 4845, 4863, 4872, 4905, 4940, 5225, 5290, 5302, 5342, 5348, 5562, 5607.
NOTE: I will not comment on these references for ?come? as that is a very exhaustive effort. I spent a lot of time going through and finding them and reviewing each to be sure that they are a proper form of ?come? or allow for the word ?come? to be used as a variation.
So, why then did the Watchtower Society cite 2064, ?erkhomai? as though it was a normal selection of the word ?come? and then leave the impression that somehow Matthew selected ?parousia? to uniquely deal with Jesus Second Coming ? thus suggesting that if Matthew had meant ?come? he would have selected ?erkhomai?? The Society argues that Matthew used ?erkhomai? 80 times, and surely would have used it if he meant ?coming? as a verb. HOWEVER, here is something that may have gone unnoticed:
e. ?Come v. Coming:? The Society used a slight of hand to switch to the word ?come? to suggest a more common form that Matthew could have used. However, when you search under the word ?coming? you find a totally different result in Strong?s. First, examining an English dictionary, you find that there are many variations of the word come. For example, Webster?s New World Dictionary, Second College Ed., C 1978, shows 16 variations, with an additional 40 sub-variations. So, what is the issue between the ?come? and ?coming?? The word ?come? is an intransitive verb, whereas ?coming? is an adjective form of that verb. Therefore, Matthew would not have selected the verb form for ?come? in Greek for use at Matthew 24. Rather, he would either stay with a noun, or have used an adjective.
Examining the variations of the Greek adjective ?coming? as found in Strong?s gives much different results:
Ref. #0561: Apenantee ? ?in presence of?Ref. #1715: Emprosthen ? ?in sight of?
Ref. #1725: Enantienantee ? ?figuratively, present?
Ref. #1726: Enantion ? ?in presence of?
Ref. #1799: Enopion ? ?literally or figuratively in sight of, or presence?
Ref. #2714: Katenopion ? ?directly in front of?
Ref. #3952: Parousia ? ?return, coming, present?
If Matthew had intended to reflect a thought in line with 20 th Century Watchtower theology, he could and would have selected a verb or adjective to more accurately state this, such as: Enantienantee, meaning ?figuratively? present ? as this would have closely matched current Watchtower theology which teaches that Jesus is in heaven, but is ?present? in the sense that he is now ?active? in earth?s affairs via a Kingdom government. But, Matthew did not make such a selection ? nor did those who translated Matthew.
Rather, Matthew used ?parousia? which is found in Strong?s as follows:
Strong's Greek Definition for # 3952 3952 // parousia // parousia // par-oo-see'-ah //
from the present participle of 3918 ; TDNT - 5:858,791; n f
AV - coming 22, presence 2; 24
1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent
2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise
the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and
gloriously the kingdom of God
NOTE that of the 24 uses of ?parousia? in its variations, 22 times it is preferred as ?coming? whereas it is only used 2 times as ?presence? ? neither of which are used in context with Jesus future return or second coming. [Initially I searched only under one variation of ?parousia? and found 21 uses, of which only one reference in Corinthians shows it used at ?presence.? - see above comments.]
A related word:
3918 // pareimi // pareimi // par'-i-mee //
from 3844 and 1510 (including its various forms); TDNT - 5:858,791; v
AV - be present 9, come 7, present 3, be present here 1, be here 1,
such things as one hath + 3588 1,
he that lacketh + 3361 + 3739 1; 23
1) to be by, be at hand, to have arrived, to be present
2) to be ready, in store, at command
Therefore, ?parousia? is NOT connected with ?invisibility? or a ?figurative? presence interpreted by Jesus' supposed actions as defined by some religious organization! Rather, ?parousia? whether used as ?coming? in the sense of advent, arrival, etc. or used as ?present? in the sense of being at hand, in the vicinity, to have arrived, to be here, deal only with the ?visible? immediate ?coming? or ?visible presence? of Jesus Christ as he returns in glory. He is not working from a ?remote? control panel in heaven, and only ?figuratively? present via active attention.
Finally, consider this unnoticed fact: The Society translates "parousia" by using the English word "presence." So ... what else is new? Find a good Dictionary and examine the noun "Presence." You will discover that it has nothing to do with some person being in an "invisible" condition at some remote location, figuratively 'present' by the result of his/her actions. Rather, even the English word "presence" is used in the context of being """at""" the location, along side others at an event, to actually """be there,""" being in the immediate surroundings in """close view""" ... especially a person of high station or imposing apearance. [Webster's Second College Ed., C 1978]
We have no evidence that Jesus Christ has returned in his Glory, his Second Coming, and we have no evidence that he is now judging the living and the dead, nor any of the other ?visible? features associated with his return, a return assuring that ?every eye? would see. Therefore, we have to conclude that it has not happened yet.
Amazing