Flash, you are preaching to the converted.
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
gymbob
Frank~
Good job!
Ever have lunch with Gangas at a bethel table? Forget the meal....
(sorry i'm off topic, but it sucked and I was bored!) GYMBB
-
fjtoth
Gymbob,
Ever have lunch with Gangas at a bethel table?
Yes, many times, though I tried to avoid him. He always had a question 'to test your knowledge' -- a question that he just asked you the last time he saw you, even if it was only the day before. Or, he had some remarks that greatly exaggerated how wonderful it was to be "in the truth" and especially at Bethel.
Frank
-
SWALKER
Likewise today, for the most part people are living their everyday lives not taking any note of the days or presence of the Son of man and that Jesus is gathering his people into one ark or organization for survival of the impending destruction to be brought upon this wicked system.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607270006
ABC jumps on Apocalypse bandwagon: GMA host Roberts welcomes End Times authors' "insight"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607260002
In Middle East conflict, other crises, conservative media find signs of Biblical prophecy of Armageddon
http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/cnn_discovers_book_of_revelati.php
Jul. 27, 2006 - 10:48 AM
End of World
CNN Discovers ... Book of Revelation!
Liz Cox Barrett
Not so long ago, we thought "Could you catch fire during surgery?" was a sensational, scare-mongering title for a television news segment.
And then we saw the following on-screen caption during Monday night's Paula Zahn Now on CNN: "Developing Story: Is it The End?"
Who'd dare change the channel? (Then again, what are the chances -- if it was, truly, "The End" -- that Paula Zahn would have that scoop? Anderson Cooper, maybe ...)
Zahn teased the related segment thusly: "Next in our 'Top Story' coverage, what does the Book of Revelation tell us about what's happening right now in the Middle East? Are we really approaching the end of the world?"
It shouldn't have been surprising, we suppose, that CNN convened an "expert panel" Monday night and devoted nearly fifteen minutes to exploring the alarming question of, "Is it The End?" (and seven minutes the next day to revisiting the topic, and seven minutes again Wednesday to re-revisiting it). It had, after all, been 48 long days since CNN last discussed the matter (on the demonic date of 6/6/06 when, to cite just one example, Glenn Beck and a guest discussed, "Could Iran Kick off the Apocalypse?" with Beck noting, "if we don't hit [Iran], you know Israel will hit them ... here we are on 6-6-06. How does this not end in Armageddon?")
Pssstttt....your little secret is out, everybody knows!!! The WHOLE WORLD IS EXPECTING ARMAGEDDON !!!!! RUN!!!!
Swalker
-
sspo
to thirdwitnessLet's say you are right along with the GB about Jesus receiving power,god's kingdom established in 1914 and turning HIS attention to the slave class and using them in despensing food at the proper time.
If this powerful king is in charge why is it that hundreds of books published since 1879 are useless
What kind of king is he that he has allowed the GB to dispense so many falsehoods such as the resurrection in 1925 of the "faithful men of old".
The deception about 1975
MALAWI Allowing people to die,be raped,loose their jobs and homes and go into exile because of a .25 cents cards knowing that in the future he would dispense new truth about voting (Wat/1999). at the same time allow the Mexicans to avoid jail time. Does he favor Mexicans.
Why does he allow young men to end up in jail for decades because of alternative service knowing he was going to change his mind in the future?
What kind of king is he to provide knowledge of the 1914 gen.and then 70 years later in 1995 dispense different kind of food about the same doctrine.
What kind of king and leader is he to play games with the blood issue,allow people to die and then eventually give more light and allowing his people to take components of blood and rely on their conscience.
If the end is just around the corner,when are the chinese and indians going to get a witness or does he favor the white race just as he favors the Mexicans?
I could give many other examples of the last 130 years of the Jesus of the Watchtower being the leader and in charge and giving the GB knowledge and insight and constantly changing his mind on issues
He definetely does not have a good record as a leader and king. NO POWERFUL KING AS DESCRIBED IN ISAIAH AND THE GOSPEL WOULD BEHAVE IN SUCH A WAY.
ARE THEY REALLY SPIRIT DIRECTED? ARE THEY TRULY IN THE HANDS OF THE KING?
Down deep in your heart after coming on this board you know you have been sucked in like all of us were at one time by the destructive teaching of the GB.
Many JW stay in the organ. even though they know it is not the truth but they stay because they don't have the balls to get out, some stay for social reason, such as family and friends and the fear of losing them.
You are a very intelligent individual, why are you staying in? Is it because of the cushy job you have at Bethel and realize after so many years, it would be very hard to be on the outside?
Down deep in my heart I know in due time you will get out because now you know the " TRUTH IS NOT THE TRUTH"
-
AlanF
thirdwitless continues to ignore 95% of the arguments in my posts, which he knows he cannot refute. Instead, he keeps repeating the same old nonsense. In his post # 297 he wrote:
: I see no reason to continue to argue about what parousia means. AlanF on the one hand admits parousia means presence but on the other hand tries to quote from scholars that say parousia can mean presence or coming or arrival or advent.
What do you mean, "on the other hand"? You're such a complete twit. I've taken pains to quote from various scholars to show the full range of meaning of parousia. As I've stated repeatedly, both you and your deceitful Mommy have taken pains to avoid mentioning any meanings such as "coming", "arrival", "return" and so forth.
You continue to ignore the simple fact that context determines the meaning in a given instance.
What you're doing is saying, "Lookie here! Parousia means presence. Therefore the NWT's translation as presence is right." But this ignores the fact that parousia has a variety of meanings. How do you choose which one is right in a given instance? You have no answer.
You continue to ignore the fact that the NWT's slavishly and dumbly rendering parousia as "presence" in every instance results in nonsensical translations. You keep ignoring my specific example, which completely disproves your claims:
: The NWT on the other hand translates parousia literally as presence.
It does so slavishly, and in so doing sometimes buggers a passage. I already posted the following -- which you duly ignored -- which shows that in certain passages the focus of parousia is clearly on the arrival. For example, 1 John 2:28 says (NIV):
And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
Note that John is making a parallel between "appears" (Gr. phanerow; appear to someone) and "coming" (Gr. parousia). Clearly, the context shows that the focus is on the first appearance, i.e., the arrival, the coming.
Now note how the New World Translation buggers the meaning:
So now, little children, remain in union with him, that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his presence.
The phrase "at his presence" is nonsensical. A presence is an extended time period, and this phrase makes no more sense than it does to say, "John went to Paris at his lifetime." A sensible statement would be, "John went to Paris during his lifetime."
Of course, thirdwitless, in the way of the stereotypical JW defender, you'll continue to ignore this problem with the NWT.
I must be a better prophet than Jehovah's Witnesses, because my prediction continues to be fulfilled.
: . . .
:: Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. (end of quotes)
: Does this mean that it can have the primary meaning of presence? Yes.
Of course, you twit. I have never said different.
: Depending on the context.
Well whoop de do! Finally an acknowledgement of this elementary point.
: Well how about this. Lets just render parousia as presence in every case and let the reader use his discernment about the context rather than base the translation on the traditional 'Christian' view of Christ's 2nd coming.
Once again, as I stated in my post # 4702 immediately above your post here, that you've slightly responded to:
thirdwitless: This way the reader can determine the meaning for himself based on the context of what Jesus is saying.
AlanF: Nonsense. Almost all NWT readers are JWs. Almost all JWs will blindly accept whatever is in the NWT as coming from Jehovah himself. Such readers will never "determine the meaning" of anything on their own.
Since I refuted your claim in that post, your repeating it shows one of two things (so what else is new?): You're stupid, you're a liar, or both.
: AlanF is silly for arguing that the NWT is somehow evil for translating parousia as its root meaning--presence.
The ridiculousness of this claim about words that have multiple meanings, even though there is a root meaning, can be easily illustrated.
As I explained in my post # 4694 -- which you almost completely ignored -- the Greek word mellw has a variety of meanings, with the root definition "to be about to". An example of this usage is Revelation 10:7:
"In the days when the seventh angel is about to [mellw] sound his trumpet. . ."
Suppose we use the thirdwitless rule that root meanings of words can always be properly used in rendering Bible passages, and apply it to 2 Peter 1:12. What do we get?
"For this reason I shall be about to [mellw] always to remind you of these things. . ."
Obviously, this is a nonsensical rendering. But using one of the many definitions of mellw yields a sensible translation:
"For this reason I shall be disposed [mellw] always to remind you of these things. . ."
Another example, from Acts 22:16:
"And now why are you about to [mellw]?"
Obviously, using the root meaning makes this nonsensical. But using another meaning of mellw yieds a sensible result:
"And now why are you delaying [mellw]?"
Going back to my example of 1 John 2:28 above, the NWT has the nonsensical translation:
"and not be shamed away from him at his presence [parousia]."
But another primary definition of parousia yields a sensible statement:
"and not be shamed away from him at his coming [parousia]."
Again, when Greek words have multiple possible meanings, context decides which one is best. Slavishly rendering a Greek word into a single English word demonstrably can result in nonsensical translations.
: Papyrus:
: . . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the parusia of the king . . .
: "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parusia."
: Can presence be substituted for parousia in these cases?
: . . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the presence of the king . . .
: "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome presence."
: Why yes it can?
That is not the point. "Coming" or "visit" can equally well be substituted in these two examples:
". . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the coming/visit of the king . . .
"It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome coming/visit."
Clearly, all of your above nonsense is an attempt to sidestep the issue: parousia has multiple meanings; which meaning to choose for an English rendering depends on context; slavishly choosing just one meaning results in nonsensical translations; when immediate context is of no help, global understanding of the context of the Bible book in question, or of several Bible books, can help decide.
Of course, you ignore all of these niceties. And so does your Mommy.
To repeat a few more points that you've ignored (see my above post # 4704 for details):
Josephus states:
"My narrative will proceed to tell of the second invasion of our country by Titus -- the condition to which civil war had reduced the city on his arrival [pareimi]."
Suppose we dance the Watchtower sidestep and just stick in the root meaning of parousia/pareimi. We get nonsense:
"My narrative will proceed to tell of the second invasion of our country by Titus -- the condition to which civil war had reduced the city on his presence [pareimi]."
Most early Greek-Latin translators, for whom both languages were living, used the Latin adventus ("advent" or "coming") for parousia. To claim that 'celebrated WTS scholars' know more about translating from Greek to Latin than did men who fluently spoke both languages nearly 2,000 years ago is ludicrous.
Adolph Deissman shows that parousia and adventus were used respectively by Greek and Latin speakers to describe the same visit of some king or other notable. He also shows that parousia and epiphany (appearing) are synonymous in NT usage.
Deissman states:
Even in early Christian times the parallelism between the parusia of the representative of the State and the parusia of Christ was clearly felt by the Christians themselves. This is shown by a newly discovered petition of the small proprietors of the village of Aphrodite in Egypt to the Dux of the Thebaid in the year 537-538 A.D., a papyrus which at the same time is an interesting memorial of Christian popular religion in the age of Justinian. "It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parusia." The peasants, whom a wicked Pagarch has been oppressing, write thus to the high official, after assuring him with a pious sigh at the beginning that they awaited him "as they watch eagerly from Hades for the future parusia of Christ the everlasting God."
Obviously, if the Christians in the village of Aphrodite were awaiting the coming of the Dux of the Thebaid, the Dux was not yet there, and so parousia cannot sensibly be translated as "presence" here. Those Christians can hardly be said to have been waiting on pins and needles for the "presence" of the Dux, but can easily be said to have been waiting for the "coming" of the Dux.
This is Deissman's most important point, for purposes of this discussion:
Quite closely related to parusia is another cult-word, epiphaneia, "epiphany," "appearing." How close the two ideas were connected in the age of the New Testament is shown by the passage in 2 Thess. ii. 8, already quoted, and by the associated usage of the Pastoral Epistles, in which "epiphany" or "appearing" nearly always means the future parusia of Christ [1 Tim vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Titus ii. 13.], though once [2 Tim. I. 10] it is the parusia which patristic writers afterwards called "the first." Equally clear, however, is the witness of an advent-coin struck by Actium-Nicopolis for Hadrian, with the legend "Epiphany of Augustus"; the Greek word coincides with the Latin word "advent" generally used on coins. The history of this word "epiphany" goes back into the Hellenistic period, but I will merely point out the fact, without illustration: the observation is not new, but the new proofs available are very abundant.
Bottom line: according to Adolph Deissman, the Greek words parousia and epiphaneia are virtually synonymous in NT usage, and are always translated by early Christians into Latin by adventus.
: I am not going to go thru all your scholars one by one and refute anything
Of course not. You're incompetent to do so. And you're too dishonest to admit anything on this board even if you admitted to yourself that you found it.
: because you totally ignore what the scholars say about parousia
Such a liar you are!
: and there is nothing to refute.
Oops. There's that Orwellian protective stupidity kicking in again.
: You even ignore what you yourself say about parousia in admitting what it means.
Nonsense. You're simply too stupid to understand what I've said, or too dishonest to admit that you understand it. I think that even a medium-sized child could understand what I've written above.
: Then you turn around and claim the NWT is wrong for translating parousia as presence. You don't make any sense. I think even your friends on the DB are wishing you would drop it because it is getting embarrassing.
LOL! You remind me of that poor paraplegic Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, hopping around on his legless torso and mocking the intact knights who cut off his legs and arms to fight him.
AlanF
-
AlanF
In his post # 300 thirdwitless said:
: So either the Bible contradicts itself or Jesus was to receive kingship in a special way and authority in a special way after a long period of time in the final part of the days.
All such rationalizations aside, Jesus is attributed in Matthew 24:18 to have said that he received "all authority". The word "all" is rather clear, don't you think? If you think that "all" has shades of meaning, either in Greek or English, then by all means explain why. Cite authoritative sources to back up your explanations.
But -- this should be getting boring for lurkers by now -- we know very well that you'll never tackle this problem, because it gets to the root of the problems now being experienced by your nasty little cult.
: By being appointed to this special kingship as ruler of God's kingdom that was to destroy all other kingdoms no longer would his authority have an affect only on his congregation but it would affect all of mankind.
Having received all authority after his resurrection, Jesus could not possibly be appointed to a higher position or have received additional authority. All means all -- except perhaps in that fantasy land of Jehovah's Witnesses.
: Jesus even though having all authority waited until this special appointment before he exercised that authority to its greatest extent. And still he has not exercised all of his authority. He will do that at Armageddon.
The Bible says nothing about Jesus' exercising his authority, as opposed to having it. This is another fine example of preaching, as opposed to rationally debating.
AlanF
-
VM44
On the "1914 Generation" Watchtower cover, who is the man in the upper right hand corner?
He does not look old enough to have been part of that generation.
--VM44
-
DannyHaszard
WOW awesome timing just up on the news wire
Comments on Lesson Nine: Day-Year Principle Desmond Ford
Adventist Today, CA - 7hours ago
... Today it is still held by Jehovah’s Witnesses who thereby come up with Christ’s invisible return to earth in 1914 to set his seal on the Watchtower ...