I am not resposnsible fo how the word parousia is treated in the Lexica. Indeed other secondary meanings are given and examples are presented in accordance with this in the Lexicons for that is what Lexicons do. However, the primary focus of the celebrated WT scholars is the use of this word in the Christian Greek Scriptures and there is sufficient eveidence therein to conclusively prove that parousia means ;presence' and 'presence' alone.
A truly stunning display of cognitive dissonance. Even in recognition of the fact that lexicons do give "coming" and "arrival" as perfectly valid meanings of parousia, he still insists that the only meaning of parousia is "presence" and "presence" alone. Is he saying that the lexicons are wrong? Or what? Seriously, I am really tired of him trying to have it both ways. He accused me of dishonesty for NOT citing lexicons in my original essay, knowing fully well that these fully support what I wrote, and he even suggested that I would rather rewrite the lexicons to make them have the "crazy idea" that parousia may mean "coming", again not letting on that these lexicons do include "coming, advent, arrival" as part of the meaning of parousia. Now he says that parousia means "presence" and "presence" alone in spite of what the lexicons actually say. So is he saying that it is wrong for them to define the word the way they do? Then why criticize me for not citing them (as opposed to showing the usage directly from the texts themselves)?
Several times he made reference to "presence" as the primary meaning of parousia and "coming, arrival" as a secondary meaning -- as if that makes any difference. The implication is that the primary meaning is somehow necessarily better, more appropriate, etc. But that is a very unscholarly attitude. It is basic lexicographical knowledge that the first definition given in lexicons usually corresponds to the older and more etymological sense of the word, but that is no reason to prefer it regardless of usage and context in translation and exegesis. As I laid it out in my essay, it is a fallacy to stick to the etymological sense of the word without considering usage. If the word has a number of different possible meanings, you need to see how it is used in context to determine which is the most appropriate sense. Even the "celebrated WT scholars" knew of this in preparing the NWT, at least the times they chose not to ignore it (e.g. rendering xulon as "stocks" and "clubs" in Matthew 26:47 and Acts 16:24, neither the "primary meaning" of xulon in the lexicons).
And look at the lexicons I presented a few pages ago and see which definition of parousia they consider the instances in Matthew 24 as pertaining to. All the ones that cite this text list it under "advent" or "coming", not "presence". It is not hard to see why if you read Matthew 24 without reading Watchtower doctrine into it.
The noun occurs 24 times in the NT and the verbal form also occurs 24 times so there is sufficient usuage for deteremining its meaning.How it is used in other sources such as the LXX and extrabiblical sources is important and interesting but not essential in determings its use by Matthew.
Indeed, the meaning is clear from its use in Matthew 24 alone, but the value of other texts is in confirming that the meaning apparent from one's exegesis was a natural and normal one in the language, and for clarifying its nuances. Only someone who doesn't understand the process of exegesis would think that confirmation and clarification are unimportant.
The quotation of Adolf Deismann's comment on Parousia or Parusia does not help your argument in fact the opposite is true for there is no evidence anywhere in the literature both Ancient and Modern that would any other meaning for parousia than 'presence'.
Typical pseudo-scholar statement. He just makes the assertion that there is "no evidence", that's it; it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented -- it is all brushed aside as irrelevant. Of course, by brushing aside other extrabiblical Greek texts for comparison, the question of the relationship between the NT usage and the technical meaning is already moot. For a good "scholarly" discussion of the relationship of the Hellenistic usage of parousia and the gospels, see for instance Kittel 1972 or Brent Kinman's 1999 article in JBL.