The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible (page 53)

ackack

thirdwitness, why are you being such a drama queen? Do you think 1896 is modern? Have there been advances in understanding koine greek since then?
ackack

stevenyc

Somewhere back in the dusty places of my memory, I seem to recall that it was "The Emphatic Diaglott" that Russell used. Does anyone know if this is true? Or did I dream it?

steve

TD

thirdwitness

In other words our doctrine came forth because of what the Bible said about parousia first not that our doctrine came forth first and then we tried to mold the word parousia around our beliefs.

Interesting comment.

JW's didn't do it directly, so this is not a recrimination, but "molding" the word parousia to fit a belief is exactly what happened.

Nelson Barbour's group of "Second Adventists" had been awaiting a visible return of Christ in 1874. When this didn't happen, B.W. Keith, a reader of Barbour's periodical, pointed out that Benjamin Wilson's new (At the time) Interlinear translation rendered parousia as "presence" rather than "advent" and suggested that perhaps Christ had returned after all, albeit invisibly, and that this "presence" would extend throughout the harvest.

Barbour found this solution attractive and like the Millerites 30 years before this, decided that they had been looking for the "wrong thing at the right time."

Problem is, there is nothing in the word parousia that even remotely implies, let alone requires, invisibility. Regardless of whether it denotes, "arrival" or "coming" or "presence" or "arrival with a subsequent presence" the word was used at the time and is still used today to describe something visible and tangible.

I'm not denying that a "spirit creature" could be present and be invisible to our eyes because that's not the point. The point is that the word has been molded around a unique theological precept and has been assigned an esoteric meaning that would not be derived from a facile reading.

bjc2read

Thirdwitness:

Please note,

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)

A Simple Question For Thirdwitness: Do you acknowledge or accept the fact, as stated by the Watchtower Society in their publications, that the apostles who asked this question in Matt. 24:3, actually had NO CONCEPT AT ALL of an invisible "parousia" or presence?

I thank you for your response in advance.

bjc

thirdwitness

And of course there is Israel P. Warren who AlanF knows about but of course would not dare mention because he is not a modern scholar.

We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,—THE PRESENCE.

From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word ‘coming’ nor the Latin ‘advent’ is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, ‘presence,’ in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical [root] idea of them the same. ‘Coming’ and ‘advent’ give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; ‘parousia’ that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .

"Had our translators done with this technical word ‘parousia’ as they did with ‘baptisma,’—transferring it unchanged,—or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a ‘second Presence,’ I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, ‘second advent,’ and ‘second coming,’ would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period,—that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.

ackack

Interesting comments from AlanF on Israel Warren:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01173.html

ackack

AuldSoul

Lest anyone be confused as to whether thirdwitness is quoting directly from Watchtower Society sources without offering proper citation of them:

NWT Reference Bible p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia)

Concerning the meaning of this word, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15: “We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,—THE PRESENCE.

I wonder whether thirdwitness will see as current doctrine the writings of C.T. Russell released in the same year (1879) in the pages of the first ever Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence regarding the proper understanding of parousia, i.e. a presence which began in 1874, followed by a coronation that took place in 1878. Well thirdwitness? Shall we consider the 1879 understanding of parousia oudated, or is it current? Your call, champ.

AuldSoul

Oh, and stevenyc asked you:

Thirdwitness,
Could you clarify the societies position on this?
Matt 24: 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. I understand that you believe the anointed Jehovahs Witnesses represent the faithful slave, but who is the Master, and at which point is his 'arriving' referring too (at the presence or at the tribulation)?steve

You haven't responded yet. I am curious, did the master erchomai around 1914, or not?

AuldSoul

stevenyc

TD: Problem is, there is nothing in the word parousia that even remotely implies, let alone requires, invisibility. Regardless of whether it denotes, "arrival" or "coming" or "presence" or "arrival with a subsequent presence" the word was used at the time and is still used today to describe something visible and tangible.

Thanks for this TD. Personally, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The NWT uses parousia as 'presence', and other bible translations use 'coming' or 'advent'. Each could be said as being visible or invisible, but neither requires a state of visibility or invisibility. Even Vine's usage of parousia insists on an initial arrival or coming and then associates a presense with that. You could say, using the Vine definition:

When Elvis came on stage, he did it with PAROUSIA.

It may be an interesting etymological discussion, but not necessary to debunk the governing bodies interpretation of Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Matthew 24 does this on its own merit.

steve

MAS*H

Phew! What's that smell? Did someone fart in this thread? Oh yes, yes they did... I recognise the stench of 607 anywhere.

Did you know, my bottom has a theory about 607 too... fortunately I'm not actually going to post it. IT ALL BEEN SAID A MILLION TIMES BEFORE ON THIS FORUM.

PS. I've changed my mind... here's my theory on the 'TIMES'...

[Stratch Here] --- It's stratch and sniff.

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

Share this