In his post # 282, thirdwitless put up the following renderings of Matthew 24:3 in outdated Bible translations:
: "the SIGN of THY presence" The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson,
Published in 1864.
: "the sign of thy presence" The Emphasised Bible, by J. B. Rotherham,
Published in 1902.
: "the signal of Your presence" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton
Published in 1903.
Thirdwitless has also cited Young's translation as a reference, but it was published in 1862.
: I know, I know, all morons and not 'modern scholars'.
Not morons in the least, but certainly not modern scholars. Their translations are outdated, and outmoded by new information. I will post a good deal of this information in an upcoming post.
You've also cited Israel Warren, who wrote in 1879 and is hardly a modern scholar. As I've taken pains to explain, W. E. Vine was a Dispensationalist and member of the Open Brethren, whose religious beliefs dictated some of Vine's definitions in Expository Dictionary, so he can hardly be termed an objective scholar on the meaning of parousia in Matthew 24:3. You also cited J. B. Rotherham writing in an appendix the The Emphasized Bible, justifying his translating parousia as "presence" in every occurrence in the NT. But as I showed with respect to Vine, all of their views about the meaning of parousia in Matthew 24:3 are outmoded and outdated, as explained by modern scholar F. F. Bruce. Bruce gave the following critical comments on Vine's use of parousia in the eschatalogical system he espoused (F. F. Bruce in Percy O. Ruoff, W. E. Vine, His Life and Ministry, London, 1951, pp. 75-6):
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of Touching the Coming was their treatment of the word parousia. They insisted on the primary sense of ‘presence’ and understood the word in its eschatological use to mean the presence of Christ with His raptured Church in the interval preceding His manifestation in glory. . .
It may be questioned whether this interpretation of parousia does adequate justice to the sense which the word has in Hellenistic Greek. The writers did, indeed, appeal in support of their view to Cremer’s lexicon; but Cremer wrote a good while before the study of vernacular papyri revolutionized our knowledge of the common Hellenistic speech.
In other words, Vine, Warren, Young, Fenton, Rotherham and Wilson all based their opinions on parousia on 19th-century views that were superceded by discoveries of Koine Greek papyrii in the late 19th century. These papyrii were analyzed and published over a period of many years, with the main results first published by Adolph Deissman in 1908 in Light from the Ancient East.
In post # 284, thirdwitless wrote:
: Jesus becomes the newly established king of God's kingdom in 1914 as testified by the world events and the 7 times.
Dead wrong. The Society claims that earthquakes, famine, pestilence and war suddenly became much worse problems for mankind in 1914. The facts say otherwise:
(1) Earthquake frequency and magnitude since 1914 is not statistically different from any preceding time period for which data is available. Since 1993 the Society has admitted this.
(2) The risk of dying in an earthquake in the 20th century was a bit less than in the 19th century, and less than one third of that in the 18th century.
(3) On a per capita basis, famine killed far fewer people in the 20th century than in previous ones. Indeed, today the number of overweight people in the world exceeds the number of malnourished.
(4) On a per capita basis, pestilence killed far fewer people in the 20th century than in previous ones. Indeed, some historically major killers, such as smallpox, have been virtually wiped out.
(5) On a per capita basis, war has killed about the same number of people in the 20th century as in all preceding centuries for which we have good historical data.
(6) If the "world events" that the Watchtower Society claims have been far worse killers of humanity in the 20th century than ever before have really been killing people on a far more massive scale than ever before, we would see a drastic decline in world population. The opposite has been occuring during the entire period since World War I.
: He did come as king.
Only according to Watchtower theology.
: Coming is a correct word to use when speaking of his arrival in 1914. But coming does not accurately depict the meaning of parousia because not only did he come but he stayed.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that a presence necessarily requires a coming, and a coming necessarily requires a presence of some length, however small.
Your claim is nothing but a repetition of Watchtower doctrine. You provide no proof here of an extended "presence", nor have you ever in this thread.
: He is now present. And he will continue to be present until his coming forth at Armaggedon. Then he will come forth to execute the judgements that have been rendered.
Others have adequately debunked these notions. But the biggest kabosh on the "Gentile times" chronology is the fact that not one thing that the Society claims is so bad about post-1914 times is true, as shown above.
I think that your incompetence in discussing matters such as the meaning of Greek words is shown by your incompetent comment in post # 290:
: Steve and others, you talk about Chirst's coming as if it is a noun. Parousia is the noun. Coming is just a verb.
In the cases in question, "coming" is a verbal noun, or gerund. See if you can manage to look this up in a dictionary, or better, an English grammar book.
In post # 295 thirdwitless had the temerity to claim:
: I believe that I have answered every question posed to me on this subject.
Liar! Give your post numbers where you've answered the challenges I've posed above. Note that most of these are repeats of what I've already posted.
: Some do not like my answers because they do not coincide with what you want to believe.
You've given no answers. You've given simple-minded replies that ignore 95% of what you pretend to be answering.
: No answer would be good enough for ones who have but one agenda: to try to discredit Jws.
That poor old straw man again. Yawn.
: Take for example AlanF as repects the NWT translating parousia as presence.
: The problem with AlanF's insistance that parousia in Matt 24 can only correctly be translated as coming or advent and certainly not presence is that it is based solely on the fact that he has this great obsession to prove JWs wrong.
Yet another lie. I've already proved that one modern scholar, F. F. Bruce, directly states that "presence" is a wrong translation. I've already shown briefly that another modern scholar, Adolph Deissman, shows why "presence" is a wrong translation.
Why do you ignore these modern scholars? Why do you lie about this?
: So he decides based on this theology that presence is the wrong translation and coming is the correct translation even though most if not all scholars acknowledge that the literal meaning of parousia is presence.
Yet another lie. No modern scholar says that the "literal meaning" of parousia is "presence". Rather, they all agree that "presence" is one literal meaning, "coming" is another, "advent" is another, "return" is another, and so forth. They all agree that context determines the meaning -- a concept that you continue to ignore.
: Some say that parousia is a coming yes, but also a presence. AlanF wants to translate parousia as coming so that he can hide the fact that there are two different words used in the text, parousia and erchomai.
Not at all. I have not commented yet on that, but among them, AuldSoul, ackack and stevenyc have all commented well and shown that in NT usage, parousia and erchomai are often interchangeable.
: This way he can obscure the true meaning from ones who don't know that there are two different words used. And mislead any unsuspecting unstudied JWs or interested ones.
Since I have not yet said anything about erchomai, this is patently false.
: Bible translations that use the word coming are basing this on the traditional view of 'Christians' that Christ has a 2nd Coming.
Just a couple of sentences ago, you tacitly admitted that there was a second coming in 1914: "Some say that parousia is a coming yes". Your tacit admission is a simple consequence of the fact that you can't have a presence without a coming. So even Jehovah's Witnesses -- apparently without even knowing it -- admit that Christ was to have a second coming.
Good Lord! Jehovah's Witnesses admit that Christ would have second coming! What might we expect next?
Of course, you'll completely ignore all of the above.
: They are interpreting parousia according to their beliefs. But as shown by many scholars, coming does not accurately depict the meaning of parousia to the fullest extent.
Once again, no modern scholars agree with this. Only pre-1900 scholars, or W. E. Vine who had a Dispensationalist agenda and based his claims on pre-1900 scholarship, agree.
: The NWT on the other hand translates parousia literally as presence.
It does so slavishly, and in so doing sometimes buggers a passage. I already posted the following -- which you duly ignored -- which shows that in certain passages the focus of parousia 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."
Of course, thirdwitless, in the way of the stereotypical JW defender, you'll continue to ignore this problem with the NWT.
: This way the reader can determine the meaning for himself based on the context of what Jesus is saying.
Nonsense. Almost all NWT readers are JWs. Almost all JWs will blindly accept whatever is in the NWT as coming from Jehovah himself. Such readers will never "determine the meaning" of anything on their own.
: The NWT is not trying to deceive or confuse the reader.
Of course it is. In my post # 4694 -- of which you ignored about 99% -- showed conclusively how the NWT deceives readers with its false translation of mellw in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, which it does to avoid a serious problem with Matthew 24:3. But as usual, you ignored that, too.
: The reader can use his own judgment as the whether parousia is just a coming or a presence which of course involves an intial coming.
There's that second coming again.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
: There is nothing wrong with this. Other translation have done the same.
Sure. Outmoded ones based on 19th-century scholarship that has been discarded by all modern scholars.
On to the usual "you're a vile apostate" ad hominem:
: But AlanF denounces the NWT for doing this. Why? Because he doesn't care what the Bible is truely saying.
Of course I do. I quote the Bible constantly as an authority for these theological issues.
: He doesn't even believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Neither do you. You reject Exodus' statements that the universe was created in six days.
: He has only one agenda: to try to discredit JWs
That is only part of my agenda. JWs need discrediting because their doctrines deceive and hurt people, and their policies kill people.
: and mislead all that he can away from the truth.
Actually, those who have paid attention to my postings and other sundry writings have generally found that they've been able to pull away from the deception that characterizes the JW organization and find the truth about "the Truth".
When are you going to answer my question about whether the 1996 Watchtower on parousia fairly represents Josephus' statements where he uses parousia? The fact that you agreed to do this, and have failed to respond to my requests after your agreement, shows that you're afraid to because you know what's coming.
AlanF