thirdwitness wrote:
: After searching thru the irrelevant parts of AlanF's last charade I think I may have found the 'meat' of his argument if you want to call it that.
Actually all you've managed here is to illustrate in spades what everyone who deals with Jehovah's Witnesses quickly figures out: they deal only in proof-texts and generally ignore overall context. What contexts did you ignore? Here are a few:
The fact that various Bible writers use parousia virtually interchangeably with other words for "coming", "appearing", "revealing", "arriving" and so forth.
The fact that whenever the word parousia is used in a theological context, it is virtually synonymous with "coming" or "arrival" or "appearing", as in "Second Coming".
The fact that Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, properly translated, make the use of "presence" in Matthew 24:3 impossible.
The historical context of the "invisible presence" doctrine -- which doctrine is what we are discussing here in the main -- : the fact that its history shows that it has failed miserably to predict anything at all.
By failing to deal with the entire context that I took pains to establish, you once again misrepresent my argument by dealing only with the bits and pieces you think you can twist into yet another straw man.
: AlanF's words in italics.
:: So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot.
: Correct.
:: In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come.
: Not totally correct. If 5 good people could be found, the city would not be destroyed. Lot tried to find them but couldn't. If there had been other righteous ones in the city God would have gotten them out just as he did Lot.
That's not preaching. That's searching. My point stands.
:: At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning.
: No one has ever said that Noah covered the entire world with his preaching.
Obviously, you don't know what your own cult teaches. Note:
it-1 p. 609 Deluge
Years of time were spent building the ark, time that Noah the “preacher of righteousness” also used in warning that wicked generation. (2Pe 2:5)
it-2 p. 507 Noah
Noah set to work as a builder and “a preacher of righteousness,” warning that wicked generation of impending destruction.—2Pe 2:5.
it-2 p. 660 Power, Powerful Works
In the pre-Flood period, men had ample evidence of God’s power. They knew the way back into Eden was impassable, blocked by powerful spirit creatures. God showed he was alive to what was going on, approving Abel’s sacrifice, expressing judgment upon his murderous brother Cain, yet warning men against executing Cain.—Ge 3:24; 4:2-15.
Some 1,400 years later, the earth became filled with wickedness and violence. (Ge 6:1-5, 11, 12) God expressed displeasure at this situation. After sounding a warning through his servant Noah, he forcefully demonstrated by means of a global Flood that he would not allow wicked men to ruin the earth. He did not use his power to force them to worship him but, through Noah’s work as “a preacher of righteousness,” gave them opportunity to change.
w03 12/15 p. 20 Prove Yourself Ready for Jehovah’s Day
Noah was “a preacher of righteousness.” (2 Peter 2:5) Neither Noah’s building project nor his preaching moved the people of his day to act.
w02 3/1 p. 6 Why Did That Ancient World Perish?
Noah was told specifically that God would destroy all flesh in a deluge. (Genesis 6:13, 17) Although Noah became “a preacher of righteousness,” it was evidently difficult for people to believe that everything around them was going to end.
w01 11/1 p. 10 Jehovah Is a God of Long-Suffering
But by having Noah construct the ark and serve perhaps for several decades as “a preacher of righteousness,” Jehovah offered Noah’s contemporaries ample opportunity to repent of their violent ways and turn to serving Him. (2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) The eventual destruction of that wicked generation was fully justified.
w01 11/15 p. 30 Noah’s Faith Condemns the World
Noah sounded a warning and served God faithfully as “a preacher of righteousness.” But the people “took no note until the flood came and swept them all away.”
w00 1/15 pp. 9-10 “Keep on the Watch”
In many respects, people today are like the men and women who lived in Noah’s day. At that time the earth was filled with violence, and the inclination of the heart of man was “only bad all the time.” (Genesis 6:5) Most were consumed with the daily affairs of life. Before he brought the great Deluge, though, Jehovah gave people an opportunity to repent. He commissioned Noah to preach, and Noah obeyed—serving as “a preacher of righteousness” perhaps for 40 or 50 years or more. (2 Peter 2:5) However, the people ignored Noah’s warning message. They were not on the watch. In the end, therefore, only Noah and his family survived the execution of Jehovah’s judgment.
w97 3/1 p. 12 Are You Ready for Jehovah’s Day?
Noah is well-known as the builder of an ark for the preservation of life through the Deluge. He was also “a preacher of righteousness,” but his contemporaries “took no note” of his God-given message. They ate and drank, got married, raised families, and carried on the normal affairs of life until the Flood swept them all away.
w96 11/15 p. 26 Are You Imitating Our Impartial God?
Noah built an ark. While he and his sons constructed the ark, Noah was also “a preacher of righteousness.” (2 Peter 2:5) Despite knowing the wicked heart inclination of that generation, Jehovah impartially sent them a clear message. He appealed to their minds and hearts by having Noah build and preach. They had every opportunity to respond, but instead they “took no note until the flood came and swept them all away.”
The Watchtower Society directly states that Noah preached to the entire "wicked generation" of Noah's day. No exceptions. If you think that the Society is "no one", that's your lookout.
:: So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.
: Incorrect.
Your claim is based on only one thing: your circular argument that Christ's "invisible presence" began in 1914 and that this Watchtower doctrine requires that JWs have been given a warning since then. Sorry, circular arguments don't cut it.
: The days of Noah are compared to the days of the Son of man. You twist the scripture. The days of the Son of man are not compared just to the time that the flood came. You add the word 'before' in there to try to make what you are saying seem correct. The scripture does not say the days of Noah are like the days before the Son of man. Luke 17:26 says, "just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man:" Sorry there is no before in there.
: Maybe you are getting this mixed up with Matt 24:38: 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 (days) of the Son of man will be. Ah there is that word 'before'. It is used in connection with the flood not with the days of the Son of man. What does that mean? It means just the opposite of what you are saying. It means that the days before the flood are the same as the days or presence or parousis of the Son of man. It does not mean the days before the Son of man is like when the flood suddenly came.
It's astonishing how severely you distort what the scriptures say. Let's look at the passage again:
Matthew 24:36-39: 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] 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 coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be."
Now let's analyze the individual verses. Verse 36 makes a statement that no one knows the day or the hour. Why do they not know? Verse 37 answers, beginning with the key word "for". "For" in this position introduces material that explains the preceding material. It's like "because". The sentence "I grow hungry, for I have not eaten" is equivalent to "I grow hungry because I have not eaten." Verse 37, therefore, states the reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because the coming of the Son of man would be like the days of Noah. Obviously, the days of Noah were before the flood. Verse 38 states an additional reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because just as in the days before the flood, people were living life normally as if nothing were about to happen.
So, far from being disconnected from the preceding verses, verse 38 is an integral part of them because we have the logical sequence: 36 statement. 37 for this reason . . . 38 for this other reason.
If you disagree, then explain what "for" means in these passages, and explain why you think verse 38 is disconnected from the preceding ones.
Various commentators agree with my explanation. Here are two:
Cook's Commentary (The Bible Commentary, F. C. Cook, 1871-1881, Volume VII, Matthew to Luke, p. 144) comments as follows on Matthew 24:37-39:
37. But as the days of Noe, &'c.] From this point to the end of the chapter, and also in ch. xxv., our Lord describes His last coming to judge the world, which had been brought out as a distinct object of contemplation in verse 36. The time of that judgment is unknown to men, and therefore many will live carelessly and be overtaken by it unawares.
Barne's Notes (Notes on the New Testament, Albert Barnes, Matthew and Mark, 1884-5, Baker Book House reprint, pp. 261-2) comments:
37. Noe. . . The coming of the Son of man would be as it was in the days of Noah -- 1st. In its being sudden and unexpected, the precise time not being made known, though the general indications had been given. 2d. The world would be found as it was then.
38. For as in the days, &c. The things mentioned here denote attention to the affairs of this life rather than to what was coming on them. It does not mean that these things were wrong, but only that such was their actual employment, and that they were regardless of what was coming upon them.
39. They knew not. That is, they knew not the exact time until it came upon them. So, says he, it shall be when the Son of man shall come. They shall not know the precise time until he comes, and then they will be found engaged in the ordinary business of life unconcerned.
The only commentators I've ever run across who agree with the Watchtower Society about this are the Dispensationalists and various Bible Students. But I'm sure you won't agree with them on much of anything.
:: but you've ignored that 'the days of Lot' = 'the days of the Son of man'.
: I am not ignoring that at all. It was just not relevant to the fact.
It's very relevant because the comparison shows what the three comparisons are all about, preventing people like you from distorting what the other passages say.
: But if you want to use that, that is fine. The days of Lot did not just include the day that fire and sulfur came out of heaven. The days of Lot included all the days before the destruction when men were carrying on degradation and taking no note of God.
Once again, you ignore the fact that the focus of these passages is not on some length of time before a "coming", but on the "coming" itself which happens to be contained in a period of time. Any "coming" is not instantaneous, and must involve at least a wee bit of time before and after it.
And again, because you ignore overall context, you're unable to see how the scriptures fit together. I'll remind you again that the passages we are discussing prove conclusively that parousia and "day of the Lord" are interchangeable in the Gospels:
Matthew 24:27, 37, 39: For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. . . For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. . . and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be.
Luke 17:24, 26, 30: For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be. . . Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days [hemera] of the Son of man. . . The same way it will be on that day [hemera] when the Son of man is to be revealed [apokalupsis].
In these passages, Matthew employs phrases like parousia tou huiou tou anthrwpou (coming of-the Son of-the man), while Luke uses phrases like hemera tou huiou tou anthrwpou (day of-the Son of-the man). It is clear that these passages equate coming [parousia] and revealing [apokalupsis].
: So yes, thanks for bringing that up.
As if you've proved anything. LOL!
:: You've also neglected the obvious fact that the whole point of these passages is not to equate these periods, but to show the unexpectedness and suddenness of the events that came at the end of these periods.
: There is no doubt that it shows the unexpected suddeness of Armageddon coming upon mankind. I did not neglect that fact.
Your entire post here consists of neglecting that fact.
: The whole point of these passages is to equate these periods.
You can make bald declarations until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have proved anything. Until you can make sense of the entire context, which I set forth in two earlier long posts, you'll have nothing of value to say. And you won't prove anything unless you bite the bullet and demonstrate why you think that the entire context I've established is wrong. All you'll continue proving is that you're good at ignoring arguments.
:: All of these passages are completely understandable in the normal Christian way when the complete passages and context are considered, as I've shown above.
: You like rhetoric rather than truth, don't you? You tried to twist the context by adding the word 'before' where it is not and taking it away from where it really is.
LOL! I've shown that you're so ignorant of language that you don't know that the word "for" connects two sentences in biblical Greek.
: By normal Christian way do you mean Christendom's way?
Most Christians other than JWs.
The JW definition of "Christendom", by the way, is completely nonsensical. All it actually means is "non-JWs who claim to be Christian". Any other Christian religion could claim the same thing and make just as little sense.
::: The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'.
:: Not quite. Your claim is incomplete.
: My claim is nothing more than what Jesus said. He is the one that used presence of the Son of man in Matthew 24
Nope. He used parousia in the Greek version of Matthew. It is only your false claim that he used or meant "presence". And as I've shown several times now, and as you've continued to ignore, in view of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, that rendering is impossible.
: and days of the Son of man in Luke 17. So what you really must be saying is Jesus' claim is incomplete.
Nope. I've already explained this and will not repeat myself here.
:: Which is why the translation "presence" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
: Translating parousia as 'coming' makes the reader think that Jesus used the same words throughout Matthew translated 'coming' by some Bibles and he didn't.
So what? Since parousia as "coming" is used interchangeably with other words by various Bible writers, it makes complete sense.
If an English essay is being translated into, say, French, and the English writer used a variety of expressions like, "he came, he arrived, he showed up", and French had only one word for these verb phrases, say, "arriver", it would be perfectly acceptable to translate all of them with this one word.
Conversely -- and you steadfastly refuse to deal with this -- the NWT creates a nonsensical expression in 1 John 2:28 with "at his presence", whereas "at his coming" is pefectly sensible. This example completely destroys your argument, and that's why you won't deal with it.
Finally, would you like me to post a list of Greek words that the NWT translates by several different English words, and vice versa? Not likely, because such a list again demolishes your argument.
: He used the noun parousia for a reason and that was to distinguish it from the verb used for coming.
Then why do parallel passages in various NT books use variations on words like arrive, come, appear, reveal, etc.? As I've shown -- and you've duly ignored -- various Bible writers often use these words synonymously.
: Which is why the translation "coming" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
LOL! Spoken like a true JW.
:: Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't disprove your silly claims before, they can now.
: You like rhetoric don't you? I think it will mean more when I say it: Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't see thru your silly claims before, they can now.
You're extremely amusing.
: By the way, your teeth are laying on the floor.
So says the Monty Pythonesque Black Knight.
The proper expression, by the way, is "your teeth are lying on the floor". But you know all about lying, now, don't you.
AlanF
