Look He's off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz. AlanF just keeps on making the same old tired, boring, and strawman arguments that have already been shown to be ridiculous. Another embarrassing display by AlanF. So much so that your friends have begin to totally ignore the subject and write about other things. But I will give him this: He is the master at ignoring the guidelines of this DB and coming forth with all sorts of name calling. Oh, but its justified because he is so patient with the posters who disagree with him until finally it comes to the point where the only thing to do is name call. But on with his latest tantrum. AlanF's words in italics. thirdwitless continues to ignore 95% of the arguments in my posts, which he knows he cannot refute. Instead, he keeps repeating the same old nonsense No, I just posted a rather substantial post comparing Matt 24 to Luke 17 showing that the days of Noah is like the days of the Son of man and the presence of the Son of man clearly showing just exactly what was meant by the use of the word parousia. But AlanF continues to ignore 100% of the arguments in my posts, which he knows he cannot refute. Instead, he keeps repeating the same old nonsense. The reason he cannot refute it is because he only relies on the Bible when it does not contradict him or what he believes the secular chronologists or secular sources are saying. The Bible plays 2nd or 3rd fiddle with AlanF. You continue to ignore the simple fact that context determines the meaning in a given instance. No, I gave scriptural and undeniable proof showing that the presence of Christ in Matt 24 is the same as the days of the Son of man in Luke 17 and that both are many years just like the days of Noah. You continue to ignore the simple fact that context determines the meaning in a given instance. What you're doing is saying, "Lookie here! Parousia means presence. Therefore the NWT's translation as presence is right." But this ignores the fact that parousia has a variety of meanings. How do you choose which one is right in a given instance? You have no answer. Wrong again, I compared Luke 17 with Matt 24 and gave a scriptural answer that cannot be refuted. What you're doing is saying, "Lookie here! Parousia can mean coming. Therefore the NWT's translation as presence is wrong." But this ignores the fact that parousia of the Son of man has the same meaning as the days of the Son of man and are connected to the many years that covered the days of Noah. That is the true context. You have no answer. You continue to ignore the fact that the NWT's slavishly and dumbly rendering parousia as "presence" in every instance results in nonsensical translations. Sorry but I haven't yet seen the nonsensicalness of translating parousia as presence. You continue to ignore the fact that the NWT's rendering parousia as "presence" in every instance and especially in Matt 24 is an honest thing to do so that the reader can use his own judgment just as they translate soul, sheol, and hades each time they are found in the scriptures so that the reader can use his discernment. You continue to ignore the fact that your insistance on rendering parousia as "coming" in Matt 24 ignores the context as shown by the parallel account in Luke 17 and you merely base your insistance on your obsession to discredit JWs and support the belief of Christendom of a 2nd Coming of Christ only at the time of Armageddon. By the way, you are failing miserably in discrediting JWs on everything you embark upon. Does this mean that it can have the primary meaning of presence? Yes.Of course, you twit. I have never said different. Thanks for that admission. AGAIN! Now when will you start believing it and stop this foolish notion of yours that the NWT committee has translated parousia as presence because the translators were evil and sinisterly dishonest. Since I refuted your claim in that post, your repeating it shows one of two things (so what else is new?): You're stupid, you're a liar, or both. You refuted nothing about my comparison of Matt 24 with Luke 17. You refuted nothing about parousia being translated as presence. You only supported the fact that parousia could rightly be translated as presence with all the scholars you used. Dare I throw this comment back at you for fear I might have my posting priviledges limited for disobeying the guidelines of the board: Since I refuted your claim in that post, your repeating it shows one of two things (so what else is new?): You're stupid, you're a liar, or both? No I want do that. I will refrain from calling you stupid or liar or both. Suppose we use the thirdwitless rule that root meanings of words can always be properly used in rendering Bible passages, and apply it to 2 Peter 1:12. Strawman. Thirdwitless, as you say, has never made such a rule nor has the WTS nor did the NWT follow such a rule. It was only in the case of certain words that the NWT consistently translated the words literally so all could see and use their own discernment. Such words as soul, sheol, hades, and presence to name a few. Rather than showing dishonesy as you try to say, this shows honesty and allows the reader to reach the correct conclusions on the meaning of the text. when immediate context is of no help, global understanding of the context of the Bible book in question, or of several Bible books, can help decide. By 'global understanding of the context of the Bible' do you mean the beliefs of Christendom should come into play when translating parousia? Should we apply the same rule to the Trinity and hellfire doctrine? When comparing Matt 24 to Luke 17 and all the other points that I have previously made, the context is quite apparent and presence is the correct translation. Using the word 'days' would seem to be a better translation than 'coming'. But that would be taking liberties with the word parousia which the NWT did not do. Josephus states: Another straw man. How do you come up with these ridiculous arguments? As the WT points out:
Examples from Josephus: At Mount Sinai lightning and thunder "declared God to be there present [pa·rou·si´a]." The miraculous manifestation in the tabernacle "showed the presence [pa·rou·si´a] of God." By showing Elisha’s servant the encircling chariots, God made "manifest to his servant his power and presence [pa·rou·si´a]." When Roman official Petronius tried to appease the Jews, Josephus claimed that ‘God did show his presence [pa·rou·si´a] to Petronius’ by sending rain. Josephus did not apply pa·rou·si´a to a mere approach or momentary arrival. It meant an ongoing, even invisible, presence. (Exodus 20:18-21; 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; 2 Kings 6:15-17)—Compare Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, chapter 5, paragraph 2 [80]; chapter 8, paragraph 5 [203]; Book 9, chapter 4, paragraph 3 [55]; Book 18, chapter 8, paragraph 6 [284]. Y ou're simply too stupid to understand what I've said, or too dishonest to admit that you understand it. I think that even a medium-sized child could understand what I've written above. The argument you keep bringing up essentially saying, "Parousia can too be translated as coming." is quite childish and embarrassing for those who hold you in such high esteem. Especially when so many scholars have said that parousia primarily means presence and is like a visit from a king. Here is another scholar in your long list of scholars who agree.
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E. W. Bullinger shows that pa·rou·si´a means ‘the being or becoming present, hence, presence, arrival; a coming which includes the idea of a permanent dwelling from that coming onwards.’
According to Wikepedia Bullinger was "educated at King's College, London, and gained recognition in the field of Biblical languages."
E.W. Bullinger was noted broadly for three works: A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1877); for his ground-breaking and exhaustive work on Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898); and as the primary editor of The Companion Bible (published in 6 parts, beginning in 1909; the entire annotated Bible was published posthumously in 1922). These works and many others remain in print (2004).
And just in case you missed it here is The final nail in the coffin of AlanF's and other opposition to JWs interpretation of parousia. Luke 17 offers a parallel of Matthew 24. An examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia. Luke 17: 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Note that 'the days of Noah' = 'the days of the Son of man'. The days of Noah was a time when people were carrying on the everyday affairs of life and took no note of their impending destruction. They took no note of what Noah was saying and doing. How long were the days of Noah when men were taking no note until the flood came? According to Genesis 6:3 Jehovah says of wicked mankind in the days of Noah: "... his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” So the days of Noah before the flood, specified by Jehovah, when men were taking no note of Jehovah was at the very least 120 years. Quite an extended period of time. Enter Matthew 24: 37 : For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. Lets compare this scripture to Luke 17:26,27. Luke: Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, Matt: For just as the days of Noah were Luke:so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: Matt:so the presence of the Son of man will be. Luke: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, Matt: For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, Luke: until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Matt: 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, The sentences are virtually the same, almost identical with one notable exception. Luke says 'the days of the Son of man' but Matthew says 'presence of the Son of man'. What can we surmise from this? The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'. And both equal the days of Noah when people were living their everyday life taking no note of what Jehovah's servants were doing and saying. Then the flood came and swept them all away. A time period that lasted over 100 years. The days or presence of the Son of man is not just paralleled by the period when the flood actually swept them all away. The days or parousia of Jesus is paralleled by the days of Noah before the flood also when they were taking no note of what was to come upon them. The days that someone is present involves not only their arrival but the period of days that they remain after their arrival. Likewise today, for the most part people are living their everyday lives not taking any note of the days or presence of the Son of man and that Jesus is gathering his people into one ark or organization for survival of the impending destruction to be brought upon this wicked system. So in conclusion, this proves decisively that the presence or parousia or days of the Son of man is a specific extended time period that begins before the actual destruction of the wicked system when people are taking no note of God and his reigning King and what he is doing and taking no note of their impending destruction just like the days of Noah which lasted over 100 years. In view of this definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence, parousia is no brief coming at the destruction of the wicked as many would have you believe. Not only that but parousia in Matthew 24 can accurately be translated by its root meaning presence and presence accurately depicts the entire meaning of parousia because the days or parousia of the Son of man covers many many years just as the days of Noah covered many many years