The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF

    In his post # 282, thirdwitless put up the following renderings of Matthew 24:3 in outdated Bible translations: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 Their translations are outdated, and outmoded by new information.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But as I showed with respect to Vine, all of their views about the meaning of parousia in Matthew 24:3 are outmoded and outdated, as explained by modern scholar F. F. Bruce.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

    Fisherman said:

    : I want to say that you concede that you only heard second hand informatiom from x Btls you admit. You did not know the man and you were not in bb when this happend.

    Of course. The closest I got to Knorr was when he, along with his sidekick George Couch (now deceased), came to my home back around 1959 to discuss with my Dad how to deal with some serious problems in the Bellmore, Long Island, New York congregation. Knorr appointed my Dad to be the Congregation Servant to straighten out a variety of problems. My being about eight years old, Knorr didn't acknowledge my presence.

    Nevertheless, you cannot discount what I've heard from many people merely because I didn't interact with Knorr. Are you calling all these people who have told me about Knorr liars? If not, what's your beef? If so, what's your evidence?

    : "Obviously" you conclude, or is that an opinion?

    Of course it's an opinion, since I don't know you from a hole in the wall. But it's a very reasonable opinion, given that your comments contradict everything I've ever heard about the man. I have no reason at all to doubt my sources, which as I said, include direct personal contacts and reading plenty of books and online experiences. Are you prepared to discount all that?

    : I bought the 2 books rf. I know that story but I will read the books objectively.

    So up until now, you have not read Ray Franz's books.

    : Everyone has enemies, even Jesus had them. NHK had them too

    Yes, and according to everything I've seen, they were his own creation.

    : His enemies do not say nice things about him. Not comparing NHK to him, but all you are saying is hearsay according to you. You do not have all of the facts or do you?

    No one has all the facts about anything. I have enough facts to conclude that Knorr was a real bastard. What facts do you have to conclude anything else?


  • AlanF

    Why Modern Scholars Universally Use "Coming" Rather than "Presence" for the Greek Word Parousia in Matthew 24:3

    In the New World Translation, Matthew 24:3 reads:

    While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [parousia] and of the conclusion of the system of things?"

    All modern Bible translations use the word "coming" or something similar, instead of "presence", in this passage. A corrected rendering might be:

    What will be the sign of your coming [parousia] and of the conclusion of the system of things?

    While the root meaning of parousia is "presence" (literally, "a being alongside"), it can also mean "coming," "arrival," "advent," "appearing," (see footnote 1 for this paragraph) and is often used that way in Greek literature. Parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival". It is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward. That flavor focuses on the presence rather than the arrival, according to the first of two major definitions given in the 3rd edition of Bauer's Lexicon: "the state of being present at a place, presence." But this is an incomplete definition. Bauer’s Lexicon gives a second major definition, which focuses on the arrival rather than the subsequent presence: "arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent." Various sources state that parousia can mean "the visit of a ruler," which certainly applies to Christ’s second coming as King, and is consistent with the definitions heretofore given.

    Footnote 1 for above paragraph:

    A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker, Second Edition (BAGD), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 629; Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977, p. 490; The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, ed. by Harold K. Moulton, Zondervan, 1978, p. 307; A Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford, 1976, p. 1343; The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, Wigram-Green, Hendrickson Publishers, 1982, p. 680; Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, Balz & Schneider, Eerdman’s, 1993, p. 43; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel and Friedrich, Vol. V, Eerdmans, 1967, p. 859.

    Understanding the meaning of parousia is not difficult: a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia, and the context in which the word is used determines the precise shade of meaning. The Watchtower Society ignores this, and for doctrinal reasons only acknowledges the first.

    A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand." An example where it means "arrival" is from Josephus, The Jewish War, Book I, section 10 (subsection 25 in the Loeb Classical Library edition): "My narrative will proceed to tell of the second invasion of our country by Titus -- the condition to which civil war had reduced the city on his arrival [pareimi]." There are dozens of other examples in ancient Greek literature.

    The fact is that, as with many words, parousia and pareimi have many subtly different shades of meaning.

    One such shade is "visit of a ruler." It is well established that at the time of Jesus, parousia was often used in this technical sense. Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence." Most early Greek-Latin translators, for whom both languages were living, used the Latin adventus ("advent" or "coming"). Translators for other languages used similar terms. The reason is well expressed by the early-20th-century scholar Adolf Deissmann, who was instrumental in collating and interpreting the 19th-century discoveries of ancient Greek papyrus manuscripts which showed that the New Testament was written in koine or common Greek (Light from the Ancient East, Adolf Deissmann, Hodder and Stoughton, 1908, 1910, p. 372):

    Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new texts, viz. Parousia, "advent, coming," a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parusia is the old Advent text, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee." [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent. A.D. we are able to trace the word in the East as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor [or other persons in authority, or troops]. The parusia of the sovereign must have been something well known even to the people, as shown by the facts that special payments in kind and taxes to defray the cost of the parusia were exacted, that in Greece a new era was reckoned from the parusia of the Emperor Hadrian, that all over the world advent-coins were struck after a parusia of the emperor, and that we are even able to quote examples of advent-sacrifices.

    Deissmann goes on to describe a papyrus containing a petition, circa 113 B.C.E., in which a parousia of King Ptolemy the 2nd was expected, and for which occasion was issued a large requisition of corn to be collected by the elders of a certain village (p. 373-8):

    . . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the parusia of the king . . .

    Deissmann describes further mentions of a parousia in ancient writings (p. 374):

    An inscription of the 3rd cent. B.C. at Olbia mentions a parusia of King Saitapharnes ["when they announced the parusia of the king"] . . . Next comes an example of great importance as proving an undoubted sacral use of the word, viz. An inscription of the 3rd. cent. B.C., recording a cure at the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus, which mentions a parusia of the healer (saviour) god Asclepius ["and Asclepius manifested his parusia"]. Other examples of Hellenistic age known to me are a passage in Polybius referring to a parusia of King Antiochus the Great ["to expect earnestly the parusia of Antiochus"], and two letters of King Mithradates VI. Eupator of Pontus at the beginning of his first war with the Romans, 88 B.C., recorded in an inscription at Nysa in Caria ["and now, having learnt of my parusia"]. The prince, writing to Leonippus the Praefect of Caria, makes twofold mention of his own parusia, i.e. his invasion of the province of Asia.

    It is the legitimate continuation of the Hellenistic usage that in the Imperial period the parusia of the sovereign should shed a special brilliance. Even the visit of a scion of the Imperial house, G. Caesar (4 A.D.), a grandson of Augustus, was, as we know from an inscription ["in the first year of the epiphany [synonymous with parusia, cf. p. 378 below] of Gaius Caesar"], made the beginning of a new era in Cos. In memory of the visit of the Emperor Nero, in whose reign St. Paul wrote his letters to Corinth, the cities of Corinth and Patras struck advent-coins. Adventus Aug(usti) Cor(inthi) is the legend on one, Adventus Augusti on the other. Here we have corresponding to the Greek parusia the Latin word advent, which the Latin Christians afterwards simply took over, and which is to-day familiar to every child among us. How graphically it must have appealed to the Christians of Thessalonica, with their living conception of the parusiae of the rulers of this world, when they read in St. Paul’s second letter ["the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus . . . shall destroy by the manifestation of His parusia, whose parusia is according to the workings of Satan"] of the Satanic "parusia" of Antichrist, who was to be destroyed by "the manifestation of the parusia" of the Lord Jesus! A whole host of advent-coins resulted from the numerous journeyings of the Emperor Hadrian . . . The parallelism between the Hellenistic and the Imperial period is seen also in the fact that the expenses attending a parusia of the sovereign were considerable. How deeply a parusia stamped itself on the memory is shown by the eras that were reckoned from parusiae . . . Towards the end of the 2nd century . . . an inscription at Tegea was dated:--"in the year 69 of the first parusia of the god Hadrian in Greece."

    To make the circle of Hellenism complete once more, this inscription from Arcadia gives us again the word parusia, which we found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and the New Testament. In Greece, however, a synonym ["epidemia"; "come to stay in a city," "reside in a place," "to be present at," "attend," "stay in a place," "be in town," "visit," "arrive"] is more usual.

    Note how closely this synonym epidemia corresponds to the meaning of parousia of "visit of a ruler."

    Even in early Christian times the parallelism between the parusia of the representative of the State and the parusia of Christ was clearly felt by the Christians themselves. This is shown by a newly discovered petition of the small proprietors of the village of Aphrodite in Egypt to the Dux of the Thebaid in the year 537-538 A.D., a papyrus which at the same time is an interesting memorial of Christian popular religion in the age of Justinian. "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parusia." The peasants, whom a wicked Pagarch has been oppressing, write thus to the high official, after assuring him with a pious sigh at the beginning that they awaited him "as they watch eagerly from Hades for the future parusia of Christ the everlasting God."

    Deissman then makes a crucial point (p. 378):

    Quite closely related to parusia is another cult-word, epiphaneia, "epiphany," "appearing." How close the two ideas were connected in the age of the New Testament is shown by the passage in 2 Thess. ii. 8, already quoted, and by the associated usage of the Pastoral Epistles, in which "epiphany" or "appearing" nearly always means the future parusia of Christ [1 Tim vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Titus ii. 13.], though once [2 Tim. I. 10] it is the parusia which patristic writers afterwards called "the first." Equally clear, however, is the witness of an advent-coin struck by Actium-Nicopolis for Hadrian, with the legend "Epiphany of Augustus"; the Greek word coincides with the Latin word "advent" generally used on coins. The history of this word "epiphany" goes back into the Hellenistic period, but I will merely point out the fact, without illustration: the observation is not new, but the new proofs available are very abundant.

    The point of all this is that the technical sense of parousia embodies both an arrival and a subsequent presence, often with the emphasis on "arrival".That is because the advent of a ruler was often attended by ostentatious opening ceremonies which included parades of "white-garbed subjects, trumpet blasts, acclamations, speeches, petitions, gifts and festivities." (B. M. Nolan, "Some Observations on the parousia," The Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. XXXVI, Maynooth, 1969, p. 288)

    The arrival of Christ in Kingdom power will certainly be the "arrival or visit of a king," and the general consensus among modern scholars is that the New Testament uses parousia in this way with reference to the second coming of Christ, as any modern Greek lexicon will show. Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3.

    We have examined one of the textual issues regarding the meaning of parousia, but what about the context of this most important place in which it is used? The context of Matthew 24 indicates that the disciples asked for a sign of Jesus' visible coming, not of an invisible presence followed by a visible coming. The Sept. 15, 1964 Watchtower (p. 576) said that the disciples "had no idea that he would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible." Since Jesus had just told his disciples (Matt. 23:38) that they "will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, `Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!’," and they were thinking that his return would be visible, they must have been asking about a visible appearance. And if the appearance were visible, then they could not have been asking about an invisible presence, or about a sign that the appearance had already taken place, for the appearance itself would be sign enough. So they must have been asking for a sign that Jesus’ appearance was about to take place. This is consistent with Jesus' illustration of the fig tree in Matt. 24:32,33: "Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near [or, "about to arrive" -- not "here, invisibly"]. Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors." This is also consistent with the questions that the disciples asked in two other important passages (NIV):

    Mark 13:4: Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?

    Luke 21:7: "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

    The Watchtower Society and its apologists have no answer to the above information. They simply ignore it, knowing that they have no answer.

    So much for the Society's claim that parousia ought to be translated "presence" in Matthew 24:3.


  • agapa37

    Alan f calm down life is not serious.....come on man relax what r u doing now?

  • AuldSoul


    This forum has quite a few ex-Bethelites from the Knorr era, and the undeniable point of agreement amongst them is that Knorr was a bully of the first order. He was the first to push the issue of "Theocracy" and "Theocratic arrangement", which vested authority in a classist way among the congregations. He created a clergy/laity division among the congregations, wherein the clergy are appointed as an authority over congregants by an authority above themselves. This is not the act of a man who is as you have described.

    I suggest that your having possibly met Knorr would not tell you the measure of the man, especially given the JW penchant for pretense when it comes to "displaying" the fruitage of the spirit. If someone has the spirit, it fruitage is manifest without pretense. It is very possible that your impressions of Knorr arise from momentary contact and not from lengthy association as many who post here have experienced.

    One poster here, jst2laws, a Forum Assistant, credits Knorr's personality with causing him to first question whether JWs had God's spirit. It goes along the lines of, "How could God's spirit possibly appoint someone like that to such a position of authority?" Steve, if you read this, did I sum that up correctly?

    If I am incorrect in my assumption that your association with Knorr was only fleeting (if it happened at all) please forgive me. If you have heard from people you trust (a father, an uncle, etc.) about Knorr, please keep in mind the basic human tendency to avoid speaking ill of the dead. Especially when one believes said dead person is now raised to heaven and has the ear of Jesus himself.


  • thirdwitness

    I see no reason to continue to argue about what parousia means. AlanF on the one hand admits parousia means presence but on the other hand tries to quote from scholars that say parousia can mean presence or coming or arrival or advent. The scholars that he quotes from admit that parousia means presence. His argument is quite silly. Notice some of AlanF's on words.

    While the root meaning of parousia is "presence"

    Parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival". It is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.

    a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia,

    A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand."

    Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence."

    Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. (end of quotes)

    Does this mean that it can have the primary meaning of presence? Yes. Depending on the context. Well how about this. Lets just render parousia as presence in every case and let the reader use his discernment about the context rather than base the translation on the traditional 'Christian' view of Christ's 2nd coming.

    AlanF is silly for arguing that the NWT is somehow evil for translating parousia as its root meaning--presence.


    . . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the parusia of the king . . .

    "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parusia."

    Can presence be substituted for parousia in these cases?

    . . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the presence of the king . . .

    "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome presence."

    Why yes it can?

    I am not going to go thru all your scholars one by one and refute anything because you totally ignore what the scholars say about parousia and there is nothing to refute. You even ignore what you yourself say about parousia in admitting what it means.

    You keep saying things like:

    While the root meaning of parousia is "presence"

    Parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival". It is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.

    a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia,

    A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand."

    Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence."

    Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. (end of quotes)

    Then you turn around and claim the NWT is wrong for translating parousia as presence. You don't make any sense. I think even your friends on the DB are wishing you would drop it because it is getting embarrassing.

  • thirdwitness

    Ok, and yes I believe the WT publication accurately quoted Josephus.

  • AuldSoul
  • thirdwitness

    Auldsoul, here was my answer to your question: Auldsoul said: If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?

    Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

    The visions of Revelation take place in the Lord's day from 1914 onward. Jesus is speaking to the congregations as king of God's kingdom. Besides that. Even when on earth Jesus was king of kings because he was the rightful king to take up the throne of God's kingdom. But he waited untill the 7 times had been fulfilled, the appointed time set by Jehovah to take up his kingship as rightful king of God's Messianic kingdom.

  • AuldSoul


    A king is not a king until he has rulership. Certainly he is not a king over other kings until he has rulership. If he has rulership, he is not awaiting rulership. Your explanation defies reality.



    I hope you see the deceit to which thirdwitness has to resort in order to uphold the doctrine. He even changes the meaning of the word king to include an heir to the throne. Everyone knows an heir is a prince until he is crowned king, one anointed as successor is not king until enthroned. Everyone knows a king without rulership is no king. But thirdwitness plays fast and loose with truth to make The Truth™ seem like it might be right.

    Main Entry: soph·ism
    Function: noun
    1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

    Please pay attention to what you see here. The same style of reasoning is woven throughout Watchtower Society publications. An excellent example is found in the case of Chapter 18 of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?". If you have been exposed for some time to the kind of reasoning thridwitness uses, you may have become accustomed to nodding your head when you hear it. It is baseless conjecture. It is fallacious reasoning. It is deceitful argumentation.


Share this