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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    thirdwitless wrote:

    :: I challenged you on this claim about "presence". Where is your response?

    :: Again, "presence" is a wrong translation of parousia in Matthew 24:3. No modern scholars agree with the Watchtower Society on this translation. Furthermore, the Society's 1997 exposition on it is self-contradictory and misrepresents source references.

    The 1997 date in the above should be corrected to 1996.

    : I did not answer because I figured you being the all wise all knowing Guru that you are already knew what parousia meant.

    Of course I do. Why do you think I challenged you, you twit?

    : I am a little shocked at you here saying that no modern scholars agree with the WTS translation.

    I'm not the least bit shocked that you say that. After all, pretty much everything you know on "Bible topics" is derived from Watchtower literature -- literature that deliberately fails to point out relevant information when such disproves the thesis at hand.

    : A quick google proves that to be an inaccurate statement.

    Googling for data has its place, but in most cases does not lead to authoritative scholarly sources. And we will see that you did not even understand the references you looked up.

    : Not that it matters because just because the majority might believe something doesn't make it truth. For example, the Trinity.

    Irrelevant. A topic stands or falls on its own. We're not talking about proving things here by reference to some authority's opinion, but by the weight of authoritative arguments that are based on all available data. The very same data that you're going to find out the Society has grossly misrepresented.

    : Anyway notice just two quick simple sources:

    : wikipedia: The term Parousia, Greek for "appearance and subsequent presence with" (in the ancient world referring to official visits by royalty) is also used to describe this event.

    You've already managed to misrepresent a source reference as well as the Watchtower's position on the matter. First, the Society clearly states:

    w96 8/15 p. 11 Jesus’ Coming or Jesus’ Presence--Which?
    Pointedly, pa·rou·si´a means "presence."

    Rbi8 pp. 1576-1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia)
    The Greek noun pa·rou·si´a literally means a "being alongside." . . . From the contrast that is made between the presence and the absence of Paul both in 2Co 10:10, 11 and in Php 2:12, the meaning of pa·rou·si´a is plain.

    it-2 pp. 676-677 Presence
    The Greek word from which "presence" is translated is pa·rou·si´a, formed from pa·ra´ (alongside) and ou·si´a (being; derived from ei·mi´, meaning "be"). Hence, pa·rou·si´a means, literally, "being alongside," that is, a "presence." . . . Many translations vary their renderings of this word. While translating pa·rou·si´a as "presence" in some texts, they more frequently render it as "coming." This has been the basis for the expression "second coming" or "second advent" (adventus ["advent" or "coming"] being the Latin Vulgate translation of pa·rou·si´a at Mt 24:3) with regard to Christ Jesus. While Jesus’ presence of necessity implies his arrival at the place where he is present, the translation of pa·rou·si´a by "coming" places all the emphasis on the arrival and obscures the subsequent presence that follows the arrival. Though allowing for both "arrival" and "presence" as translations of pa·rou·si´a, lexicographers generally acknowledge that the presence of the person is the principal idea conveyed by the word.

    These comments clearly do not allow for the meaning "appearance and subsequent presence with" because that is the definition of the English words "coming", "arrival" and "advent". They clearly state that the focus of parousia is on the presence, not on the appearance. So you don't even understand what you've read in the Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming ).

    Second, the Wikipedia article clearly states what the accepted implications of "appearance and subsequent presence with" are:

    The Second Coming or Second Advent refers to the Christian belief in the return of Jesus to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy. Views about the Second Coming vary among different Christian denominations, and have influenced other religions as well. The term Parousia, Greek for "appearance and subsequent presence with" (in the ancient world referring to official visits by royalty) is also used to describe this event. The Second Coming is an important component of Christian eschatology, the theology concerning the final events and ultimate purposes of the world.

    So again you've either ignored or failed to understand what you've read, and therefore falsely believe you've proved your case.

    You next referred to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/parousia ):

    Parousia
    Main Entry: Par·ou·sia
    Pronunciation: "pär-ü-'sE-&, p&-'rü-zE-&
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Greek, literally, presence, from paront-, parOn, present participle of pareinai to be present, from para- + einai to be

    This is an incomplete definition -- see below for scholarly source references that show the full range of meaning for parousia.

    You also failed to type in an important further reference that appeared in the Merriam-Webster reference, namely, to SECOND COMING. Clicking on that link immediately leads to another link to an Online Encyclopaedia Britannica article (unfortunately, one must subscribe to Britannica Online to see such articles, but a free 7-day trial subscription is available) on the "Second Coming" ( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066515 ) which states:

    also called Second Advent, or Parousia, in Christianity, the future return of Christ in glory, when it is understood that he will set up his kingdom, judge his enemies, and reward the faithful, living and dead. Early Christians believed the Advent to be imminent (see millennium), and those who have later professed what is known as Adventism have believed that the visible appearance of Jesus may occur at any moment and that Christians should be ever ready for it. Such believers find evidence for the Second Coming in the Gospels (Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-26; John 14:25-29), in the Book of Revelations, and in other biblical and traditional sources.

    Once again, a source reference that you've given disproves your claim.

    Finally, with reference to Googling for data, I noted that every entry I looked at disproves the Society's claims about the precise meaning of parousia.

    Now let's see what real scholarly references show as the meaning of parousia.

    One definition of parousia is the "arrival or visit of a king." According to the New Testament, the arrival of Christ in glory 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. The following are among the best source references to show what parousia really means:

    The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Harold K. Moulton, Zondervan Publishing House, 1978) indicates on p. 311 that parousia is related to pareimi, which has various meanings including to be beside, to be present, to be come (p. 307). For parousia it gives the meanings presence, a coming, arrival, advent, and gives Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39 as examples of the latter three.

    Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon (2nd edition, 1979) says that parousia has the meanings “coming, advent as the first stage in presence” (p. 629) and gives several references to ancient Greek literature. It gives Matt. 24:3 as an example of this use “in a special, technical sense.” It says further: “The use of parousia as a technical term has developed in two directions. On the one hand the word served as a cult expression for the coming of a hidden divinity, who makes his presence felt by a revelation of his power, or whose presence is celebrated in the cult… On the other hand, parousia became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, especially of kings and emperors visiting a province… These two technical expressions can approach each other closely in meaning, can shade off into one another, or even coincide.”

    Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (p. 1343) gives “Advent” as the meaning in each instance in Matthew.

    Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Lawrence O. Richards, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, p. 65) says of parousia that “the word means ‘presence’ or ‘coming’ and emphasizes both the idea of ‘being there’ and the idea of ‘having come.’ . . . Parousia is found four times in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:3,27,37,39). The context makes it clear that Jesus’ initial appearing is intended, for the disciples asked how they would recognize the sign of his coming. Jesus explains that he will appear suddenly (v. 27), unexpectedly (v. 37), and with devastating impact on those who do not believe (v. 39). Yet the emphasis in the total passage (Mt 24–25) is not on the meaning of the second coming but on the fact that, until Jesus does come, we are to watch, committing ourselves to serve our absent Lord (cf. the four illustrations in Mt 24:42–25:46).”

    Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (p. 490) gives Matt. 24:3 as an example of the meaning “the presence of one coming, hence the coming, arrival, advent.”

    The New Englishmen’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, 1982, p. 680.

    The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Ed., Hendrickson Publishers, 1990, p. 315.

    Moving on:

    : Also Young's Literal translation of the Bible reads: Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

    : OOOps there's one Bible scholar that must agree with the new world translation.

    LOL! Obviously you're so ignorant of the references you pull from Watchtower literature that you don't that Young's was first published in 1862, and that modern scholars consider many of Young's renderings defective in light of discoveries subsequent to Young's translation. Remember that I said: "No modern scholars agree with the Watchtower Society on this translation."

    : Anyway, it doesn't disprove that 7 times were 2520 years beginning from the desolation of Jerusalem.

    It disproves the notion of an extended invisible presence. That is part and parcel of the Watchtower's "Gentile times" doctrine.

    There's a lot more to come on this subject.

    AlanF

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    JayHawk1,thats sooooo funny ..A FogHorn LegHorn(Cartoon of a Rooster,with a southern accent)imitation..LOL!..How about this:"Is that a rolled up WatchTower in your pants boy,or are yuh just happy to see me?!"..LOL!!!...OUTLAW

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    OUTLAW and Jayhawk, you crack me up!

    AlanF

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness


    AlanF, thats it. Thats the ripping out of my teeth. I'm sure you will receive much praise from your fellow brethren in your work against God's people. All hail AlanF. Its a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Its long I'll grant you that. But you said nothing and disproved nothing that the WT has ever said about parousia. I don't even see anything to refute because quite frankly you didn't say a thing. I hope you have more. Because I am thoroughly dissappointed. Your reputation as the almighty guru of the discussion board far exceeds the reality. I think the people on H2O had better arguments than I have found here. At least they didn't constantly say, "You are a liar. You never answer our questions." Those statements must be astounding to all onlookers who have seen me painstakingly answer even the silliest of questions posed. Wow.

    I'll reread what you wrote a few times and see if I can find anything worthy of addressing about parousia that you mentioned.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    Barry, You must have missed this post because you continue to ask the same things.

    Auldsoul said: Are you aware that the word translated "weeks" in Daniel 9 literally means "weeks of years"?

    I strongly disagree with you here and so does a ton of Bible translations.

    New American Standard Bible "Seventy weeks have been decreed

    American standard version: Seventy weeks are decreed



    New KJ: "Seventy weeks are determined



    Authorized KJ: Seventy weeks are determined



    Holman Christian Standard: Seventy weeks are decreed



    New Revised Standard: Seventy weeks are decreed



    Strong's KJV: Seventy weeks are determined



    Young's Literal translation: Seventy weeks are determined



    New INternational readers: "The Lord has appointed 70 'weeks'



    Webster's Bible: Seventy weeks are determined



    Hebrew's name version: Seventy weeks are decreed



    Complete Jewish Bible: "Seventy weeks have been decreed



    New World Translation: “There are seventy weeks that have been determined

    There are more.

    The word used is Shabuwa` (Transliterated Word). It is translated as weeks throughout the Bible. Even in the book of Daniel at 10:2,3: In those days I, Daniel, had been mourning for three entire (shabuwa) weeks. I did not eat any tasty food, nor did meat or wine enter my mouth, nor did I use any ointment at all, until the entire three (shabuwa) weeks were completed.

    Would you argue that Daniel did not eat for 3 weeks of years or 21 years?

    Some Bible translations have rendered Daniel 9:24 as 'weeks of years' because they are doing more than translating, they are interpreting what was meant and they are correct in their interpretation. But I guarantee you that if Jesus would have appeared in a literal 70 weeks or just over one year not one translation would have translated it as 70 'weeks of years'. Logic and reasonableness dictates that Daniel did not just mean 70 weeks or a little over one year. These 70 weeks (by applying a day for a year) pointed to the Messiah. Likewise, using logic and reasonableness, the 7 times was not 2520 days (607 to 600) but rather 2520 years. This again pointed to the Messiah but this time as coming in his kingly power.

    All Daniels prophecy are about God's Kingdom. Daniel 4 is no exception.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    And Barry, maybe you missed this post:

    Genesis 29:27 "Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for another (Shabuwa`)seven years (Shaneh)." Shaneh is the word for 'years'.

    If shabuwa means seven years then why was it necessary for the writer to also use the word 'shaneh' which is translated years? It should have just read 'for another shabuwa' and thats it, if shabuwa means 1 week of years or 7 years. This is further proof that the 70 shabuwa or weeks of Daniel 9 must apply the day for a year if it is to be interpreted properly.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness


    And Barry, this is for you also. A conversation in the first century. It might sound familiar to you. As you read keep in mind that shabuwa means weeks and shaneh means years.

    Nicodemus: I have found the Messiah. The one prophesied in Daniel.

    Pharisee: What? How do you figure that? What prophecy in Daniel?

    Nico: You know, the one about the 70 weeks. According to that prophecy there would be 490 years from the going forth of the word....That brings us to now. Jesus appeared just as prophesied. I believe he is the Messiah.

    Phar: You must be crazy. There is no where in that prophecy that tells us that it is 490 years. It is 490 days not years, you twit.

    Nico: But shouldn't we apply a day for a year as spoken through Moses and Ezekiel?

    Phar: Why? There is no where in the text that says to apply a day for a year. If Daniel had meant 70 weeks of years he would have said 70 shabuwa shaneh. He did not say that. He only said 70 shabuwa. You are going beyond what is written.

    Nico: But that would mean the Messiah was to appear in only 70 literal weeks after the word to rebuild. That does not seem logical. What Messiah appeared then?

    Phar: Now you are getting the point my friend. Either the prophecy pointed to Nehemiah or the prophecy failed. But this Jesus, he could not be the Messiah. You interpret the prophecy incorrectly. Remember in Genesis where Jacob had to work for his wife. It was said that he would work shabuwa shaneh or 7 years. It did not say he would work shabuwa. The shaneh was put in there to show it was 7 years not one week. Daniel would have said shabuwa shaneh if thats what he meant. Do you think the Lord forgot to put the word shaneh in there. LOL. You are so trying to twist the scriptures.

    Nico: I will have to disagree with you. I believe that we must apply the day for a year rule or else the prophecy is senseless and unreasonable. Nothing happened just a little over a year after the word to rebuild was sent forth.

    Phar: Nicodumass,You are a lying moron. Everything you say is based on what Jesus has told you. Take your senseless drivel back to your god Jesus.

    Other Pharisees: That is great. You really showed him. You will teach him to question you. You made mince meat of Nicodemus' stupid arguments.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman


    Ann!!!

    Just having fun here. You are very nice.

    Since you humbly admit that you are not an authority on the Bible, then support your views, Ann.

    What I posted is not my pet theory. By the way, let me reference what I posted. I quoted from:

    "Soncino Books of the Bible" EZEKIEL with Hebrew Text and English Translation, Commentary by Rabbi Dr. S. Fisch, M.A. pg 21,22 deposition of Judea's King vs29-32.

    What I posted on EZ 21 is not my view. I only quoted from the above-mentioned source.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    Auldsoul: No, we aren't through. If, as you have repeatedly asserted, the usage of "times" instead of "years" must mean more than years, then the usage of "times" in Revelation must also mean more than years. Otherwise, your argument is false on its face. There is also a perfectly serviceable Greek word for "years" but the word for "times" was chosen instead, which reduces your argument for "times" in Daniel 4 spanning 2.5 millenia to nothing more significant than a case of special pleading.

    But, not content with that, you plead opposite positions for two meaning of "times" that you simulatneously claim are correlative.

    So, does the use of "times" instead of "years" mean more than years or less than years?

    Really, auldsoul, you are starting to repeat the same arguments. Revelation tells exactly how long 3.5 times are. We do not have to guess. That is the whole point. According to Revelation 3.5 times = 1260 days. Jehovah directed John to use the word times purposely to show just how long 3.5 times were. Using the word times in Revelation was unneccessary to show any lengths of time in Revelation since Revelation spells it out for us, 1260 days. In other words, the 3.5 times could have been left out in Revelation and no one would have known the difference. The 3.5 times was put in there just so we could know how long 7 times were.

    You are actually making my case for me. Yes, John could have said 3.5 years. But he didn't. Purposely. Because if he had said 3.5 years then we would never have known what 3.5 times are equal to. Fortunately the word times not years was used so that we can figure out how long 7 times are.

  • ackack
    ackack

    Thirdwitness, got any scriptural support for Satan coming down early to cause trouble? Doesn't this sort of contradict the scripture in Revelation that the time of trouble was after Satan for cast out, not a little bit before?

    ackack

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit