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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stevenyc

  AuldSoul:

  stevenyc,

  Give him a harder one! Everyone knows that happened in 1918/19 when the faithful and discreet slave was appointed, some 20 years before they even knew they were the faithful and discreet slave. That was near the beginning of Christ's parousia, silly.

  Oh! The verse says it would be at the erchomai? Oh dear. That may prove troublesome to the WTS theology after all. I take it back, excellent question.

  Respectfully,
  
  AuldSoul

  I'm staying focused on this thread to respond to thirdwitnesses attempt to justify the authority of the governing body by, as his topic says: but this Time By Using the Bible. The governing body insert their own doctrine to the bible. So, by just using the bible its quite simple, Daniel Ch4. is a case in point. With their usage of parousia, AND their usage of the identity of 'the faithful and discreet salve' from the same passage, their situation becomes untenable. I doubt if I will get a reasonable reply. It will probably by another 'chewbacca defence'. steve
• 

  thirdwitness

  auldsoul: Jesus didn't say his parousia would be like the days before the flood. He said his parousia would be like the arrival of the flood.

  Matt 24:37But as the days of Noah were, so also will the parousia of the Son of Man be.
  38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

  39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the parousia of the Son of man will be.
• 

  ackack

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole conversation kind of absurd? Doesn't the Watchtower teach that Jesus taught in Aremic and this was translated to Greek by Matthew? So isn't word choice pretty much irrelevant?

  Besides which I had always thought that Erchomai and Parousia were interchangable? An example of this is in 1 Co 16:12 and 1 Co 16:!7.

  On a side note, isn't the NWT version of 1 Thes 2:19 kind of bizarre? There the word parousia occurs twice in the vs, but NWT only uses it once. Maybe it was altered to get around some awkwardness.

  ackack
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack,

  Of the two Greek words translated "presence" in 1 Th. 2:19, only one is parousia. The other is emprosthen which can be properly translated "before", or "in the presence of".

  But your argument regarding the original wording being in Aramaic is right on target. Bringing the text into English from Greek is the second translation the text has endured. The common expression "lost in translation" did not arise without good cause.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  bjc2read

  USE OF THE WORD "PAROUSIA" BY THE APOSTLES IN MATT. 24:3The key to gaining the correct understanding Matthew 24:3 and its use of the word "parousia" can be gleaned by acknowledging the link to the use of the word "sign" in the same sentence. Let me explain.

  In the January 15, 1974 Watchtower page, 50, par. 6, the Watchtower Society makes a huge admission that inadvertently crushes their doctrine of an "invisible parousia," supposedly taught by Jesus himself in Matthew 24th chapter.

  The Watchtower Society stated:

  "When they [the apostles] asked Jesus, 'What will be the sign of your presence? they did NOT know that his FUTURE PRESENCE WOULD BE INVISIBLE."

  What???

  Here is the verse again in question:

  "...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?" -- Matt. 24:3 (NWT)

  So then that means, when the apostles asked Jesus this question originally, and used the word "parousia" they were not asking for a "sign" to let them know Jesus was "INVISIBLY PRESENT," ruling in heaven. No, they had no concept of such a teaching, admits the Watchtower Society. Which means then, they asked Jesus for a "sign" which was to let them know WHEN the "parousia" was about to take place or come.

  And if that they case, then the apostles (who incidentally was the first to use this word "parousia" and then Jesus used it 3 times after that question, in Matt. 24) was asking Jesus:

  "Give us a sign of your..." yes, coming [an event] and not of your "presence"...

  Because again, if Jesus were visibly "present"...then they could see it...they could visualize it, and they wouldn't need a "sign" to show that...would they?

  So then the apostles were asking Jesus for a "sign" to show them that the "parousia" was ABOUT TO HAPPEN...this grand event. They were asking for a "sign" that would occur BEFORE the coming, advent, arrival or "parousia" of Jesus in Kingdom Glory.

  And that of course, means the apostles (in their own meager understanding of things prior to their "anointing") used the word "parousia" to mean a simple "coming" or "advent." And that is the only possible explanation of things that we can reasonably deduce. Simple.

  And we learn all of this from the use of the Watchtower Society's own publications.

  Its also interesting to note that in describing the exact same grand event (the "Parousia" of the Son of Man), in this case referred to as the "coming of the kingdom of God," in Luke 17:20-37, Jesus refers to the coming of the "Son of Man" as being the "Revealing" of the Son of Man also. Therefore, if this is the exact same event, wouldn't this make the "parousia" of the Son of Man equal to the "Revealing" of the Son of Man? Wouldn't it? Thus we must ask, how could the "Son of Man" be "Revealed" in 1914, according to the Watchtower and yet not be, as in an "invisible presence" of sorts. This makes the Watchtower Society's teaching of an invisible "parousia" a contradiction of Jesus' own words in Luke 17:30.

  All of this and many other factors show the Watchtower Society to be horrible scholars of scripture and clearly demonstrate their foolish doctrine of an "invisible parousia" to be a complete corruption of holy scripture.

  agape,

  bjc

  PS: Above excerpts taken from The "Report" Volume II (copyrighted 1994 by Donald C. Burney)
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  Oh and let not forget this fellow:

  W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field

  Once again you use this quote to suggest that W.E.Vine was free of a theological agenda. Can you please attend to this thread and let us have your comments.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/119013/1.ashx

  Do you agree with the comments by W.E.Vine regarding ecclesisatical authority? If not why not?

  HS
• 

  jayhawk1

  bjc2read,

  Thanks, your post is most helpful.
• 

  Fisherman

  Alan;

  Are you Alan Feuerbacher?

  AD Alan I see what you are saying. I have to look more at this.
• 

  thirdwitness

  More from Bible scholars on parousia:

  J.B. Rotherham was a scholar from Britain who translated the Bible known as the Emphasised Bible. At first Rotherham translated parousia 4 times as presence and 20 times as arrival I believe it was. But in a later edition of his translation, in the appendix Rotherham stated, "In this edtion the word parousia is uniformly rendered "presence" ("coming," as a representative of this word,being set aside). The original term occurs 24 times in the N.T.. The sense of "presence" is so plainly shown by the contrast with "absence" (implied in 2 Cor.x.10, and expressed in Phi.ii.12)that the question naturally arises, -Why not always so render it? The more so, inas much as there is in 2 Pe.i.16 also, a peculiar fitness in our English word "presence." This passage, it will be remembered, relates to our lord's transformation on the Mount. The wonderful manifestation there made was a diplay and sample of "presence" rather than "coming."(cp.Mt.xvii.2.n.)and the "majesty" of his glorified person was then disclosed. His bodily presence was one which implied and exerted 2power"; so that "power" befitting such a "presence": and the three favoured disciples were at one and the same moment witnesses of both. The difficulty expressed in the notes in the 2nd edition of this N.T. in the way of so yielding to the weight of this evidence as to render parousia always by "presence," lay in the seeming incongruity of regarding "presence" as an event which would happen at a particular time and which would fall into rank as one of a series of events, as 1 Co.xv.23. especially appeared to require. The translator still feels the force of this objection, but is withdrawn from taking his stand upon it any longer by the reflection that, after all, the difficulty may be imaginary. The parousia, in any case, is still in the future, and may therefore be enshrouded in a measure of obscurity which only fullfillment can clear away: it may,in fine,be both a period, -more or less extended, during which certain things shall happen, -and an event, coming on and passing away as one of a series of divine interpositions. Christ is raised as a firstfruit-that is one event; He returns and vouchsafes his "presence," during which he raises his own-that is another event, however large and prolonged; and finally comes another cluster of events constituting "the end," Hence, after all, "presence" may be the most widely and permanently satisfying translation of the looked-for parousia of the Son of man."

  Notice that Rotherham decided it best to translate all 24 occurences of parousia as presence. No doubt he is not a modern scholar and is also simply a moron with an agenda. The only truely modern and non-moronic scholars without agendas are those who agree with AlanF's thinking. Ha Ha Ha.
• 

  thirdwitness

  "the SIGN of THY presence" The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson,

  "the sign of thy presence" The Emphasised Bible, by J. B. Rotherham,

  "the signal of Your presence" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton

  I know, I know, all morons and not 'modern scholars'.