thirdwitless wrote (# 265 page 21):
: AlanF said: You also failed to type in an important further reference that appeared in the Merriam-Webster reference, namely, to SECOND COMING.
: Here he is attempting to paint me as deceitful that I hid part of the definition of parousia in the Merriam Webster reference from the readers. What he fails to tell you is second coming is not part of the definition of parousia. Here is what it said.
Parousia
One entry found for Parousia.
Main Entry: Par·ou·sia
Pronunciation: "pär-ü-'sE-&, p&-'rü-zE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, literally, presence, from paront-, parOn, present participle of pareinai to be present, from para- + einai to be -- more at IS
: SECOND COMING
: Notice what I failed to type in is not the definition of parousia, but only a related subject.
You are about as dumb as a rock. It's no wonder you can't understand what's written in references or in the Bible.
First, what you quoted as the definition is actually the etymology. The etymology is not the definition -- it is the derivation.
Second, the convention in all Merriam-Webster Dictionaries is that a colon followed by a capitalized word or phrase is a synonymous cross-reference. Here is how my printed copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company, 1979, pp. 17a, 18a) describes use of the colon:
A boldface colon is used in this dictionary to introduce a definition.
A cross-reference immediately following a boldface colon is a synonymous cross-reference. It may stand alone as the only definitional matter for an entry . . . A synonymous cross-reference indicates that a definition at the entry cross-referred to can be substituted as a definition for the entry or the sense or subsense in which the cross-reference appears.
Because "SECOND COMING" is the ONLY definition given, and is a synonymous cross-reference, it is the ONLY definition given.
For example, here is the entry for "drippy":
drippy
One entry found for drippy.
Main Entry: drip·py
Pronunciation: 'dri-pE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): drip·pi·er; -est
1 : characterized by dripping; especially : RAINY, DRIZZLY
2 : MAWKISH 2
Given your complete misunderstanding of how dictionary entries work, note how stupid your next comments are:
: Of course Christ's coming at Armageddon is a related subject. But it is not the definition of parousia as expounded by Merrian Webster and is not included in that definition by that dictionary.
Having made a complete fool of yourself, you then cast aspersions on me, out of your ignorance:
: AlanF is an slyly intellectual one all right. He will slyly mislead you away from God's people if he can with his all wise 'intellect' and big sounding words of confusion. But I'm sure that the honest readers are able to examine the information for themselves and see thru the rhetoric of AlanF.
And I'm sure that readers are quite able to see that someone so ignorant as to be unaware of how to read simple dictionary entries has no business trying to explain difficult material such as is found in many Bible passages.
Another thirdwitless post (# 264 page 21):
: AlanF prides himself on being an all wise intellect. Anyone disagreeing with him of course is a lying moron.
As anyone who carefully examines my posts knows, I reserve such terms for those whose own posts demonstrate that they are lying morons.
See above for proof that you are at best a moron. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not say that you lied about the online definition of parousia.
: He says a lot of intellectual words that really don't say anything at all in disproving JWs.
We hear that from such scholastic bright lights as your compatriot 'scholar'.
: For example, he quoted all the sources about parousia. Here are a few of them that support the definition used by the WT:
Blah blah blah.
All of the definitions you gave are included in the ones I gave. All of the definitions you gave mostly exclude anything having to do with the definitions "arrival", "coming" or "advent". Who is being scholastically honest here?
Furthermore, as usual you've completely ignored the point that I took pains to state clearly: when multiple definitions of a word exist, context determines which definition applies. Here is what I've said:
According to the Watchtower Society, the focus of parousia is ALWAYS on the subsequent presence, not on the arrival.
The references I provided falsify the Society's longstanding claim that parousia exclusively means presence and cannot ever properly be translated as "coming", "arrival" or "advent".
Again, context shows what the writer intended. Even in English, the word "coming" can focus on the arrival, the subsequent presence, or both.
No, the definitions show that parousia can mean presence or the visit of a king. Context decides exactly what the writer had in mind.
(3) Context determines exactly what parousia should be translated as.
(4) Despite the grammatically possible meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3, no modern scholars agree that it is contextually possible -- and I have yet to post the detailed reasons why.
Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (p. 65) says: . . . The context makes it clear that Jesus’ initial appearing is intended, for the disciples asked how they would recognize the sign of his coming.
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that context must decide what parousia means in a given passage?
: Maybe AlanF does not know what the WT teaches. Maybe he doesn't realize that for one to be present he must also arrive.
Once again you've failed to take note of what I clearly stated:
"Again, context shows what the writer intended. Even in English, the word "coming" can focus on the arrival, the subsequent presence, or both."
You obviously do not want to admit -- just as the Society has taken pains to conceal from its readers -- that parousia has multiple meanings.
: After the arrival of a king he stays and he is present.
That's right, but see the above quotation from Expository Dictionary of Bible Words.
: He thinks that in quoting these sources he has disproven that all modern day scholars disagree with the WT's translation of parousia.
Wrong again. The source references I gave serve to prove that parousia has multiple definitions. I cannot possibly take an exhaustive look at every extant scholarly work, so my statement is based on the fact that in many years of study I have never come across a modern scholar who agrees with the Watchtower Society.
: He thinks that if he tells you that they disprove the WT then since he is the all wise intellect of the DB you will have to believe him. Otherwise you will risk being labeled a moron.
No one needs to take my word for anything. They are free -- and I strongly encourage them -- to look up this material for themselves. What I do -- quite in contrast to you and the Society -- is give a lot of source references that tend to prove my point. And in contrast to you and the Society, I quote them competently and honestly.
: But really, look at the definitions above. Do they disagree with the WT's translation of parousia as presence. Or do they agree.
Again that's not the point. The point is: what does the context indicate, and what do modern scholars state about why the context determines a definition?
: And has he quoted every modern day scholar above and shown us that none agree with the WT's translation. That is what he has claimed
Yet another lie. I've claimed no such thing.
: so surely it must be true since he is the all wise all knowing intellect who far surpasses God's word because of its many failed prophecies.
The usual JW-defender ad hominem. Yawn.
: Now if AlanF said that none of the above sources gave the translation of parousia as presence then I would have something to refute since that would be a lie.
You're quite the expert at inventing straw men.
: Many do give that translation of the word. So what would you have me refute?
The Society misrepresents source references modern and old by quoting only the bits that show the definition "presence" for parousia. Thus they tell lies. You obviously disagree. Try refuting my demonstration that both the Society and you tell lies about this subject.
: I see no reason to refute sources that agree with the WT in translating parousia as presence. To do that would make me a moron.
Since you've completely misrepresented the issue here, this is meaningless.
Yet another thirdwitless post (# 266 page 21):
: Translations for Philippians 2:12 where the word parousia occurs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. This happens to be one instance where context clearly shows that the focus is on the subsequent presence rather than the arrival. In other passages the focus is on both. And in certain passages the focus is clearly on the arrival. For example, 1 John 2:28 says (NIV):
And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
Note that John is making a parallel between "appears" (Gr. phanerow; appear to someone) and "coming" (Gr. parousia). Clearly, the context shows that the focus is on the first appearance, i.e., the arrival, the coming.
Now note how the New World Translation buggers the meaning:
So now, little children, remain in union with him, that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his presence.
The phrase "at his presence" is nonsensical. A presence is an extended time period, and this phrase makes no more sense than it does to say, "John went to Paris at his lifetime." A sensible statement would be, "John went to Paris during his lifetime."
So your argument involving Philippians 2:12 serves only to show that in some instances, it is proper to translate parousia as "presence", but not in all instances.
: The NWT consistently translates parousia as presence in every occurence. Just as it consistently translates nephesh and psyke as soul.
Yes, and in so doing it badly buggers the meaning of some passages, because it ignores the context and ends up with nonsensical renderings.
: Just as it consistently translates hades and sheol as hades and sheol.
In those cases there is generally a good reason to use a single word for the translation. But in many other cases, the NWT inconsistently uses a variety of English words for the same Greek word.
: Your attempts at discrediting the WT publications for translating parousia as presence makes evident what your agenda is. . .
The usual "you're an apostate" ad hominem deleted.
AlanF
