: AlanF: You seem to think that the NWT consistently translates Greek words into the same English word.
: AlanF must be on his way to see the wizard of oz with his strawman. He writes a whole page trying to refute something that I never claimed or said or even thought. Nor does the WT claim this about the NWT.
A claim of consistency is what your argument as to why the NWT uses parousia everywhere, even when context demands otherwise, is all about. The same goes for the Society's claims. The NWT Reference Bible (Appendix 5B) states:
The Greek noun parousia literally means a "being alongside," . . . The word parousia occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures . . . In these 24 places the New World Translation renders parousia as "presence."
The book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years states (ka chap. 11 p. 210):
In the year 1950, there was published the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, with the most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and translating pa·rou·si´a every time as "presence."
The NWT contains a completely nonsensical rendering, which I have discussed:
"What is our hope or joy or crown of exultation"why, is it not in fact you?"before our Lord Jesus at his presence [parousia]?" -- 1 Thessalonians 2:19
"Presence" in this passage renders it nonsensical.
The Watchtower crowed about how consistent The Emphatic Diaglott was (w93 5/1 pp. 10-11 Shedding Light on Christ’s Presence):
In Volume 2 of Studies in the Scriptures, pages 158 to 161, Charles T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, wrote: "Parousia . . . signifies presence, and should never be translated coming, as in the common English Bible . . . The ‘Emphatic Diaglott,’ a very valuable translation of the New Testament, renders parousia properly, presence . . . , not that of coming, as being on the way, but presence, as after arrival . . ."
Russell's claim that parousia "should never be translated coming" is falsified by modern scholars.
Your simpleminded dismissal of the information in my post is typical of JW defenders who know they're cornered.
When are you going to answer my question about whether the 1996 Watchtower on parousia fairly represents Josephus' statements where he uses parousia? You're afraid to, right?