I don't think you have presented YOUR qualifications my dear boy.
Don't hold your breath for an answer on this one, EF. I've been asking him that since the first pages of this thread.
LOL
J
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
jeanniebeanz
-
EvilForce
LOL....I know Jeannie...but when a thread goes on for 35 pages we need to review for everyone once in awhile :)
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus wrote:
: You are a boofhead, which I will proceed to prove.
Coming from you, I'm honored by that.
: Special pleading is an artform well practiced in the Jonsson hypothesis of which you a dedicated devotee.
You can mimic the form of good argumentation on occasion, but you rarely deliver the substance.
: Again I repeat that the seventy years of Zechariah was the period that began with the Fall and ended with the Return,
I told you: repetition for emphasis won't get you anywhere.
: it was a period celebtated by annual fastings
As we've been over a number of times already, the text mentions two periods of 70 years: one a period of denunciation that had run up through the 2nd year of Darius (Zech. 1:1, 12), and the other a period of observing fastings which ran up through the 4th year of Darius (Zech. 7:1-5).
Zech. 1 says nothing about fasting at all, so your claim that "it was a period celebtated by annual fastings" contradicts the Bible.
Since one period of 70 years was one of denunciation and reached its 70th year in Darius' 2nd year, and the other was a period of observing fastings and reached its 70th year in Darius' 4th year, they obviously must be different. Therefore your claim that the two periods are identical is proved false. Furthermore, since Zechariah specifies precisely what the periods were and when they reached their 70th years, and these items are all different from anything that Jeremiah said about his 70-year period, the two periods spoken of by Zechariah must be different from the one period spoken of by Jeremiah. QED
: which as a tradition continued right up to the 2nd and 4th year of Darius.
You're contradicting the Bible, as usual.
: At the time that Zechariah received these angelic messages in the 2nd and 4th year of Darius, the seventy years must have already expired otherwise it could not have been seventy years simultaneously in the 2nd and 4th year.
The only confusion results from your attempt to equate three periods that the Bible clearly states are different.
: This exegetical truth is well demonstrated by the confusion over the datinng of these periods in the Jonsson hypothesis.
There is no confusion in Jonsson's or my expostion. Only you are confused by your attempt to make the Scriptures say what they do not.
Due to this confusion, you have no choice but to engage in special pleading:
: So we have the seventy years of Zechariah running from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537
But we've already established that the 70-year period of denunciation spoken of by Zechariah (1:1, 12) ended in Darius' 2nd year (520/19) and that the other 70-year period of observing fastings (7:1-5) ended in Darius' 4th year (519/18). Therefore you're contradicting the Bible again.
: whereupon the Jews simply continued with the tradition of the annual fastings right up unitl the 2nd and 4th year of Darius.
You're reading into the text what simply is not there.
: Freddy must be pleased with my genius as I demoplish those poztates of the evil slave class.
LOL! I think you're completely insane.
: There is sufficient evidence in the lexica, grammar, context and textual tradition that supports the rendering of le in the NWT so it is a matter of judgement for the transaltor.
Since you've already stated that the 70 years ended not AT BABYLON but AT JERUSALEM, you've also admitted -- whether you like it or not -- that the rendering "at Babylon" is wrong. Therefore, the text must be rendered "for Babylon". And of course, Freddy must be rolling over in his grave at your unwitting admission.
: Jenni who is only acclaimed by the apostates as the world's leading authority on Hebrew prepositions
Really. Did Freddy tell you that?
: has simple provide an opinion and has no more merit than the opinion of many other translators who differ with Jenni in regard to Jeremiah 29:10.
What other translators? The demonstrably inferior ones who did the KJV? The demonstrably inferior one who did the Latin Vulgate? Men who obviously translated, not based on lexicography but on a wrong understanding of the length of the exilic period.
: You only believe that the seventy years belongs to Babylon and not Judah as you have not proved the matter at all.
Of course I have. You're simply too stubborn to admit it.
And of course, the fact that you refuse to deal with specific phrases in the relevant texts proves that you know you're wrong. So who do think you're fooling?
: Jeremiah 29: 10 simply sates that when the seventy years are fulfilled then the exiles will return
Precisely. You've even gotten the time sequence of events right: first, the 70 years are fulfilled, and then the Jews return home.
But your statement proves that you're so stupid that you don't even understand that you've contradicted your earlier statement that the 70 years ended AT JERUSALEM. If the 70 years ended at Jerusalem, and not at Babylon, then they were fulfilled AFTER the exiles left Babylon. So in one case you've gotten the time sequence right, and in your contradictory statement you've gotten it backwards.
: which has nothing to do the conquering of Babylon becuae they remained in Babylon until released by Cyrus.
This is simply more gibberish and the result of the terribly muddled thinking that allows you not to realize how badly you've contradicted yourself.
: IThis is confirmed by an equivalent text in Jeremiah 27:22 which disproves your argument.
That passage states:
"To Babylon is where they will be brought and there they will continue to be until the day of my turning my attention to them," is the utterance of Jehovah. "And I will bring them up and restore them to this place."
Clearly, the text says nothing more than that the Jews would be in Babylon until Jehovah turned his attention to them, whence he would return them to Jerusalem. This is yet another red herring from you.
: Hence, the seventy years could only have ended when the exiles returned home
Again you state that the 70 years did not end AT BABYLON.
: under the release of Cyrus in Babylon as Jeremiah said they were brought out of Babylon and restored to their place at Jerusalem. It is a bit like the Tale of Two Cities. So, Jeremiah 27 :22 links 25:11 and 29:10. in proving that the seventy yeras began with the deolation and depopulation and finished with the population of the land right on the exact time to the month. Glory Be!
Your confusion is blatant. Hence:
: The correct transaltion of 'at Babylon' concurs nicely with Jeremiah 27:22 with Babylon having a locative meaning in both verses.and thus the servitude at Babylon truly ended when the exiles returned home thus fulfilling the seventy years.
But since you've stated that the 70 years ended AT JERUSALEM and not AT BABYLON, your claims here are meaningless.
: Jerermiah 25:11 certainly indicates that many nations would along with Judah be subject to Babylon but it is only Judah that was entirely desolated according to Jeremiah which does not mean populated but depopulated, without a single inhabitant is what the text clearly shows.
As usual, you completely misrepresent the Scriptures. Obviously you have no shame. Here is what Jer. 25:8-11 states (NWT):
8 Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘"For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even [sending] to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’
It's obvious from the text that your claim that "only Judah" "was entirely desolated" and "depopulated" is false. The text clearly states that "this land" and "all these nations round about" would suffer the same fate.
It's obvious why you hate to quote the Scriptures in your posts -- you can't get around what they clearly say.
: Who do you believe? The Bible or the higher critic, a person who was not living at that time. What arrogant swill and garbage you promote!!!!!
LOL! Your blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of the Scriptures is evident for all to see.
: Judah as a desolated place is well described in Jeremiah 25:9-11 you idiot.
As is the desolation of all of the other nations mentioned in the text.
It's simply astounding that anyone who calls himself "scholar" can be make such blatantly false and stupid arguments.
On the Meaning of Stauros
: Stauros has the primary meaningof satke as any Lexicon will state. Perhaps you could have a little teeny weeny peep at Liddell's & Scott's Greek Lexicon for necessary proof
I'm glad you suggested that I look at this reference, because it gives me another opportunity to show what a despicable liar you are. Since the lexicon is full of abbreviations, I'll expand them in the parts I quote.
Liddell & Scott's Lexicon does not give "stauros" a primary or secondary meaning. Rather, it lists two meanings as being of equal weight. This is your first lie.
The first one shows these meanings:
"upright pale or stake" and "piles driven in to serve as a foundation"
The second one shows these meanings:
cross, as the instrument of crucifixion, Diodorus Siculus.2.18, Matthew 27.40, Plutarchus 2.554a; epi ton stauros apagesthai Lucianus.de Morte Peregrini 34 . . . its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Lucianus Judicium Vocalium 12.
So your claim is a lie, scholar pretendus.
Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who wrote a massive history circa 40 B.C. Plutarchus (biographer and author of Plutarch's Lives) lived from 46 to at least 119 A.D. Lucianus (or Lucian of Samosata) was a popular middle eastern writer (possibly Syrian) who live from about 125 to 180 A.D. So it's clear that, according to Liddell & Scott, writers just a little earlier and a little later than the New Testament writers used "stauros" with the meaning of "cross", not "upright stake".
And of course, Liddell & Scott's direct reference to Matthew 27:40 as an instance of the use of "stauros" as "cross" means that you've deliberately misrepresented this reference. Let's just add that to the pile of your lies.
: you fool.
"Whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Gehenna." -- Matthew 5:22.
On the Meaning of Parousia
: Parousia means presence as proven by its usage in the NT, Josephus and by Deismann's research, Leolaia has simply provided a stupid piece of nonsense based upon the Patristic period.
What utter nonsense. All three of these clearly illustrate the various meanings of parousia. Deissmann directly contradicts you, and so does Josephus, as I will now show. You are again proved a despicable liar.
While the root meaning of parousia is "presence" (literally, "a being alongside"), it can also mean "coming," "arrival," "advent," and "appearing," and is often used in those ways in Greek literature. Indeed, parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival" together, because it can include not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward. That flavor focuses on the presence rather than the arrival, and is shown by the first of two major definitions given in the 3rd edition of Bauer's Lexicon: "the state of being present at a place, presence." But this is an incomplete definition. Bauer’s Lexicon gives a second major definition, which focuses on the arrival rather than the subsequent presence: "arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent." Parousia can also mean "the visit of a ruler," which certainly applies to Christ’s second coming as King, and is consistent with these definitions.
Understanding the meaning of parousia is not difficult: a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a subsequent presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia, and the context in which the word is used determines the precise shade of meaning. The Watchtower Society and scholar pretendus ignore this, and for doctrinal reasons only acknowledge the first.
A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand." An example where it means "arrival" is from Josephus, The Jewish War, Book I, section 10 (subsection 25 in the Loeb Classical Library edition): "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]." There are dozens of other examples in ancient Greek literature.
The fact is that, as with many words, parousia and pareimi have many subtly different shades of meaning.
One such shade is "visit of a ruler." It is well established that at the time of Jesus, parousia was often used in this technical sense. Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence." Most early Greek-Latin translators, for whom both languages were living, used the Latin adventus ("advent" or "coming"). Translators for other languages used similar terms. The reason is well expressed by the early 20th-century scholar Adolf Deissmann, who was instrumental in collating and interpreting the 19th-century discoveries of ancient Greek manuscripts which showed that the New Testament was written in koine or common Greek (Light from the Ancient East, Adolf Deissmann, Hodder and Stoughton, 1908, 1910, p. 372):
Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new texts, viz. Parousia, "advent, coming," a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parusia is the old Advent text, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee." [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent. A.D. we are able to trace the word in the East as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor [or other persons in authority, or troops]. The parusia of the sovereign must have been something well known even to the people, as shown by the facts that special payments in kind and taxes to defray the cost of the parusia were exacted, that in Greece a new era was reckoned from the parusia of the Emperor Hadrian, that all over the world advent-coins were struck after a parusia of the emperor, and that we are even able to quote examples of advent-sacrifices.
Deissmann goes on to describe a papyrus containing a petition, circa 113 B.C.E., in which a parousia of King Ptolemy the 2nd was expected, and for which occasion was issued a large requisition of corn to be collected by the elders of a certain village (p. 373-8):
. . . 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 . . .
Deissmann describes further mentions of a parousia in ancient writings (p. 374):
An inscription of the 3rd cent. B.C. at Olbia mentions a parusia of King Saitapharnes ["when they announced the parusia of the king"] . . . Next comes an example of great importance as proving an undoubted sacral use of the word, viz. An inscription of the 3rd. cent. B.C., recording a cure at the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus, which mentions a parusia of the healer (saviour) god Asclepius ["and Asclepius manifested his parusia"]. Other examples of Hellenistic age known to me are a passage in Polybius referring to a parusia of King Antiochus the Great ["to expect earnestly the parusia of Antiochus"], and two letters of King Mithradates VI. Eupator of Pontus at the beginning of his first war with the Romans, 88 B.C., recorded in an inscription at Nysa in Caria ["and now, having learnt of my parusia"]. The prince, writing to Leonippus the Praefect of Caria, makes twofold mention of his own parusia, i.e. his invasion of the province of Asia.
It is the legitimate continuation of the Hellenistic usage that in the Imperial period the parusia of the sovereign should shed a special brilliance. Even the visit of a scion of the Imperial house, G. Caesar (4 A.D.), a grandson of Augustus, was, as we know from an inscription ["in the first year of the epiphany [synonymous with parusia, cf. p. 378 below] of Gaius Caesar"], made the beginning of a new era in Cos. In memory of the visit of the Emperor Nero, in whose reign St. Paul wrote his letters to Corinth, the cities of Corinth and Patras struck advent-coins. Adventus Aug(usti) Cor(inthi) is the legend on one, Adventus Augusti on the other. Here we have corresponding to the Greek parusia the Latin word advent, which the Latin Christians afterwards simply took over, and which is to-day familiar to every child among us. How graphically it must have appealed to the Christians of Thessalonica, with their living conception of the parusiae of the rulers of this world, when they read in St. Paul’s second letter ["the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus . . . shall destroy by the manifestation of His parusia, whose parusia is according to the workings of Satan"] of the Satanic "parusia" of Antichrist, who was to be destroyed by "the manifestation of the parusia" of the Lord Jesus! A whole host of advent-coins resulted from the numerous journeyings of the Emperor Hadrian . . . The parallelism between the Hellenistic and the Imperial period is seen also in the fact that the expenses attending a parusia of the sovereign were considerable. How deeply a parusia stamped itself on the memory is shown by the eras that were reckoned from parusiae . . . Towards the end of the 2nd century . . . an inscription at Tegea was dated:- "in the year 69 of the first parusia of the god Hadrian in Greece."
To make the circle of Hellenism complete once more, this inscription from Arcadia gives us again the word parusia, which we found in Egypt, Asia Minor, and the New Testament. In Greece, however, a synonym ["epidemia"; "come to stay in a city," "reside in a place," "to be present at," "attend," "stay in a place," "be in town," "visit," "arrive"] is more usual.
Note how closely this synonym epidemia corresponds to the meaning of parousia of "visit of a ruler."
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."
Deissman then makes a crucial point (p. 378):
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.
The point of all this is that the technical sense of parousia embodies both an arrival and a subsequent presence, often with the emphasis on "arrival." That is because the advent of a ruler was often attended by ostentatious opening ceremonies which included parades of "white-garbed subjects, trumpet blasts, acclamations, speeches, petitions, gifts and festivities." (B. M. Nolan, "Some Observations on the parousia," The Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. XXXVI, Maynooth, 1969, p. 288)The arrival of Christ in Kingdom power 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 and scholar pretendus' claims, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3.
Here are some references from Greek lexicons that show the range of meaning of parousia, including "coming, arrival, advent":
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 of parousia 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.
Josephus' Use of Parousia
Josephus used parousia 32 times in three of his works (A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, edited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Vol. III, 1979, p. 329), and in only five of those instances does he use it to mean exclusively "presence." He used parousia in the strict sense of "arrival" 10 times and in the sense of "arrival with a subsequent presence" 17 times. In the latter case the context shows that both "arrival" and "presence" are part of the meaning, since one can often substitute either word and the passage still makes good sense.
In the following material I present the context of every instance in which Josephus uses parousia to mean "arrival", based on the listing in Rengstorf’s Concordance to Josephus. The first part of each instance is an English translation from the Loeb Classical Library. The second part is from William Whiston's translation of the works of Josephus. The works of Josephus we are concerned with here are, The Life of Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, and The Wars of the Jews.
Each instance is marked with the name of the work in which Josephus used parousia, the number of the book (e.g., Antiquities contains ‘books’ numbered from 1 through 20), and the section number used in the Loeb Library. Modern printings of Whiston's translation, which are widely available, include these section numbers, so it is easy for readers not having access to the Loeb collection to follow along.
Instances Where Parousia Means Arrival Only
Note that the words translated from parousia cannot sensibly be rendered in English by words having only the meaning of "presence" or "arrival with a subsequent presence." This shows that the word must be translated as "arrival" or its equivalent. In some cases there is a parallel phrase showing clearly that the focus of parousia is on "arrival," "coming" or "advent."
Antiquities 6, 102
Saul waited awhile as the prophet had enjoined upon him; then, however, he would observe his command no longer, but when he saw that the prophet tarried and that his own soldiers were deserting him he took the victims and performed the sacrifice himself. Then, hearing that Samuel was approaching, he went out to meet him. But the prophet told him that he had not done rightly in disobeying his injunctions and anticipating his advent [parousian]: he was paying that visit in accordance with the will of the Deity. . .
He waited, as the prophet sent to him to do; yet did not he, however, observe the command that was given him, but when he saw that the prophet tarried longer than he expected, and that he was deserted by the soldiers, he took the sacrifices and offered them; and when he heard that Samuel was come, he went out to meet him. But the prophet said he had not done well in disobeying the injunctions he had sent to him, and had not staid till his coming [parousian], which being appointed according to the will of God. . .
Note the phrase where Saul "went out to meet" Samuel. It means that Samuel was not yet present, but was on his way -- he was coming and about to arrive.
Antiquities 8, 325
She reproached the prophet for having come [parousias] to her to convict her of sin.
[She] complained to him that he had come [parousias] to her to reproach her for her sins.
Antiquities 11, 328: The setting is that Alexander the Great is approaching Jerusalem:
When the high priest Jaddus heard this, he was in an agony of fear. . . He therefore ordered the people to make supplication, and offering sacrifice to God together with them, besought Him to shield the nation and deliver them. . . But, when he had gone to sleep after the sacrifice, God spoke oracularly to him in his sleep, telling him to take courage and adorn the city with wreaths and open the gates. . . and that they should not look to suffer any harm, for God was watching over them. Thereupon he rose from his sleep, greatly rejoicing to himself, and announced to all the revelation that had been made to him, and, after doing all the things that he had been told to do, awaited the coming [parousian] of the king.
Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror. . . He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifices to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them. . . whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates. . . without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced; and declared to all the warning he had received from God according to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming [parousian] of the king.
Since the king was not yet present, parousia must mean "coming."
Antiquities 12, 86
Eleazar, the high priest, after dedicating [the gifts] to God and honouring the bearers, gave them gifts to take to the king, and sent them back to the king. And when they came [paragenomenon; paraginomai] to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard of their arrival [parousian] and of the coming [eleluthotas; erkhomai] of the seventy elders. . .
When Eleazar the high priest had devoted [the gifts] to God, and had paid due respect to those that brought them, and had given them presents to be carried to the king, he dismissed them. And when they were come to Alexandria, and Ptolemy heard that they were come [parousian], and that the seventy elders were come also. . .
The word paraginomai means "to be by the side of, to come, approach, arrive" (Matt. 2:1: "astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem), or "appear, make a public appearance" (Matt. 3:1: "John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness"). Josephus went or came (paraginomai) to Tiberias; he arrived and became present (parousia), and the deserters became aware of his being there. The word erkhomai means "to come or go, arrive" (Matt. 24:30: "they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds"; Matt. 25:10: "the bridegroom arrived"). Here we find three parallel uses of words that illustrate their use as synonyms: the gift bearers came (paraginomai) to Alexandria; Ptolemy heard of their arrival (parousia); the seventy elders came (erkhomai) at the same time. Note that while parousia and paraginomai by themselves could conceivably mean "presence" here, the parallel use of erkhomai with respect to the seventy elders forces the meaning of "arrival."
Antiquities 12, 93
[The king] promised, moreover, that he would make a special occasion of the day on which they had come [epiphane; epiphaino] to him and would celebrate it every year so long as he lived, for, he said, the day of their coming [parousias] happened to be same as that of the victory which he had gained over Antigonus in a naval battle.
[The king} promised, however, that he would make this day on which they came to him remarkable and eminent every year through the whole course of his life; for their coming [parousias] to him, and the victory which he gained over Antigonus by sea, proved to be on the very same day.
Again note the virtually synonymous use of epiphaino (epiphaneia) and parousia. Again we note the parallel use of a word which cannot mean "presence" along with parousia, forcing the latter to mean "coming." The parousia of the visitors was their epiphaneia.
Antiquities 12, 352
This reverse befell them because they disobeyed the instructions of Judas not to engage anyone in battle before his arrival [parousias].
This misfortune befell them by their disobedience to what injunctions Judas had given them, not to fight with anyone before his return [parousias].
Using something like "before his presence" would be awkward and inconsistent with the overall context.
Antiquities 13, 266
The praetor Fannius should give them money from the public treasury for their return [epanelthoien; epanerkhomai] home. Accordingly Fannius dismissed the Jewish envoys in this manner, giving them money from the public treasury and a decree of the Senate to those who were to conduct them on their way and furnish them a safe return [parousian] home.
Their praetor Fanius should give them money out of the public treasury to bear their expenses home. And thus did Fanius dismiss the Jewish ambassadors, and gave them money out of the public treasury; and gave the decree of the senate to those that were to conduct them, and to take care that they should return [parousian] home in safety.
The word epanerkhomai means "to come back, return" (Luke 10:35: "I will repay you when I come back here"; Luke 19:15 "when he got back after having secured the kingly power"). Here again we find the parallel use of an unambiguous word determining the precise meaning of parousia -- which is here "return."
Antiquities 20, 30-32
[Helena entreated the nobles] to defer their decision about putting the brothers to death until after Izates had arrived [paragenomenos; paraginomai] and given his approval. Failing to persuade her to put the brothers to death as they advised, they, for their own safety, admonished her at least to keep them in custody until his arrival [paraousias]. . . Helena . . . set up Monobazus, her eldest son, as king . . . she exhorted him to administer the kingdom until his brother's arrival [parousias]. The latter, on hearing of his father's death, quickly arrived [heke; heko] and succeeded his brother.
Helena replied to this . . . [that the nobles] would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates's brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. So since these men had not prevailed with her when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come [parousias], and that for their own security. . . Helena . . . set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king . . . and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come [parousias]; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother.
We have already seen that paraginomai can mean "be by the side of, come, approach, arrive." The context alone shows that it and the two instances of parousia mean "arrival." The meaning is paralleled by another word, heko, which means "to be come, have arrived." Vine’s Expository Dictionary comments on the difference between erkhomai and heko: "erchomai . . . signifies the act, in contrast with heko . . . which stresses the arrival, as, e.g., ‘I am come [exerkhomai; "to come out"] and am here [heko],’ John 8:42 and Heb. 10:9." ("I am come (heko) to do your will"). Again we find an unambiguous word, heko, determining the sense of two others, so that parousia here means "arrival."
Life, 90
I mustered two hundred men and marched all night long, sending a courier in advance to inform the people of Tiberias that I was coming [parousian].
I took two hundred men along with me, and traveled all night, having sent before a messenger to let the people of Tiberias know that I was coming [parousian] to them.
Since he had not yet arrived, he could not yet be present. This is an extremely clear example.
Josephus’ use of parousia is varied, as a further study of his works shows, and is consistent with its use in other ancient Greek literature including the New Testament. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon (p. 1343) gives a number of instances in secular literature where strictly "arrival" is meant, and Bauer’s Lexicon (2nd ed., 1979) gives many instances where the meaning is "coming, advent as in the first stage of presence."
Uses of Parousia in Other Greek Literature
The Greek Septuagint version’s only use of parousia is in a way that does not allow the meaning of "presence." Neh 2:6 reads, "for how long will thy journey be, and when wilt thou return [poreia: form of parousia]?" (The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, Zondervan Publishing House, originally published 1851)
Bauer’s Lexicon lists four instances in the Apocrypha, all under the meaning "coming, advent." These read:
News of her coming [parousia] had already spread through the tents. (Judith 10:18; New Jerusalem Bible)
Judas . . . imparted unto those that were with him that the army was at hand [parousia]. (2 Maccabees 8:12; Brenton)
Maccabeus seeing the coming [parousia] of the multitude. . . (2 Maccabees 15:21; Brenton)
To outward appearance [parousia] they received us willingly; but belied that appearance by their deeds. (3 Maccabees 3:17; Brenton)
So we find that a variety of ancient Greek literature shows that parousia can be used in many ways, and is certainly not restricted only to "presence." A variety of modern Greek references explicitly show that "coming" is the correct translation of parousia in Matthew 24:3.
Thus we find that, as usual, scholar pretendus has thoroughly misrepresented the facts in order to support his Watchtower habit.
AlanF
-
Pole
While the root meaning of parousia is "presence" (literally, "a being alongside"), it can also mean "coming," "arrival," "advent," and "appearing," and is often used in those ways in Greek literature.
I'm not an expert on Greek, but it's not so relevant here, since I'd like to make a general lingusitic remark.The WTS writers seem to be very choosy about etymology. They way they typically use etymological arguments shows they either lack a basic understanding of general linguistics and/or are simply dihonest.
In the case of parousia, they keep emphasizing the fact that the literal meaning of the individual morphemes making up the word "parousia" is "being alongside". This by itself proves absolutely nothing. Historical morpheme-level meanings tend to evolve very quickly. The only criterion which allows us to decipher the current meaning of words made up of lexical morphemes which have their independent meanings is the criterion of actual usage. Usus magister optimus.
Let me use a modern example from my own language which illustrates how careful one needs to be with historical meanings of individual morphemes:
The Polish word for "arrive" is 'przybyc'. If we have a closer look at the word, it proves that the word is made up of two morphemes which may function as free morphemes (independent words):
1) 'przy' - the basic meaning of which is 'at' or 'alongside'
2) 'byc' - the basic meaning of which us 'to be'Ok, so let's put these morphemes together and translate the word literally into English:
'przy' + 'byc' = 'alongside' + 'to be' = 'to be alongside'
Makes sense? Not really. We've just committed an etymological fallacy. 'Przybyc' means 'to arrive'. It has other meanings as well but none of them ever gets close to 'being alongside'. But perhaps in two thousand years some WTS-like scholar will find an 'ancient' Polish text and come up with such a silly interpretation ignoring the actual use of the word in Polish speech and writing.
This is an example from a modern language, but it is a general lingusitic truth that you have to be careful with replacing the meaning of the whole with the meaning of the individual morphemes. Same goes for English phrasal verbs like 'make out', 'take off', etc. Their meanings are idiomatic and have little if anything to do with the meanings of the constituent morphemes.
Now if we look at the WTS translation, their consistency in using 'presence' for parousia looks very fishy. It breaks the number one translation rule which I always try to follow: "The best dictionary definition available is the context of the word/phrase/utterance/text unit you are translating." External lexicons are of secondary importance. Etymological dictionaries are almost always misleading.
Just look at this Mathew 25 passage of the NWT:
3 “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”
27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be
Same thing from NIV:
3 "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Verse 3 could be argued either way although you would need a very strong contextual justification to use 'presence', as it's not so clear how Jesus' disciples knew exactly what to ask about even before J proceeded to explain that. As the NWT has it, instead of asking "Jesus, buddy, when will you come?", they phrased this specialized question which scmacks of WTS theology "How will we know you are invisibly present?". This NWT translation sounds ridiculous and it only becomes clear when you realize what their agenda is - in this case it's an attempt to justify the nearly 100 years of Jesus coming and being "invisibly present". Verse 27. The lightning metaphor is quite clear for me: the coming of Christ was meant to be "instantaneous". Would Jesus have used the metaphor of a lightning crossing the sky if he had meant 100 years (and God know how many more) of a largely unnoticeable reign, as the WTS has it?
Verse 36 - Here you see how the NWT has to bend the text a little harder to justify 'presence'. Instead of saying "As it was in the days of Noah" they go for "For just as the days of Noah were". Again - this was one of the many comparisons he used to illustrate what kind of coming his followers were supposed to expect. If we shake off the WTS's fables about Noah's "preaching work", it becomes clear that what is meant here is the sudden coming of the end - just as it was in the days of Noah. This would be consistent with the other metaphors and comparisons made in this same chapter.
Pole
-
Jeffro
The seventy year texts are in total agreement that he period was on desolation, servitude and exile. The black and white reading of all those text do not indicate that this period was only of servitude to Babylon.
Jeremiah 25:12, chronologically the first mention of the 70 years, refers specifically to 70 years of serving Babylon after which the king of babylon was called to account, placing the end of the 70 years quite definitely in 539.
The texts refer quite definitely to the land lying desolate which that deportation which is exile which in turn is servitude.
What scripture says that the Jews would be exiled for 70 years? (You can't claim Jeremiah 29:10 - 'at Babylon' contradicts Jeremiah chapter 25. You can't claim Daniel 9:1-2 - 'chorbah' does not necessitate complete depopulation, and the Society acknowledges that the 70 years need not apply entirely to Jerusalem by its interpretation of the 70 years for Tyre at Isaiah 23:15. You cannot claim 2 Chronicles 36:17-23 as it was not 'sabbaths' that were the subject of Jeremiah's prophecy to which 2 Chronicles refers to 70 years as fulfilling.)
Desolation of the land-depopulation-exile-servitude.
These pretend hyphenated conglomerations of yours are really quite amusing.
This accurate history represents quite clearly what God's Word says confirmed by the prophecy of Jeremiah and Zechariah, witnessed by Daniel and confirmed by the Ezra.
The 'Society hypothesis' is not 'accurate history', is not shown 'quite clearly' from the bible, explicitly contradicts both Jeremiah and Ezra, and ignores the clear connection between Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31.
The theory of servitude or Babylonian domination is imposssible because no text refers to it and it cannot be established by chronology as no one can agree as to the precise date for the beginning.
The Society agrees with Jeremiah chapter 25's 70 years including Tyre and specifically as being Babylon's most dominant period. No text refers to Babylon's 20 missing years introduced by the 'Society hypothesis', and so by your reasoning 607 is also impossible.
The seventy years of Zechariah was the same period of the others because it commenced at the same time at the Fall and the context equates it with the period of desolation. It also must have been a n historic otherwise it could not have been a definite period in both the 2 and 4 th year of Darius.
It is reasonable to suggest that the angel could have known that the period would be 70 years before they were completed, so it is completely possible that both references referred to the same period. Zechariah 1:12 strongly suggests that the 70 years had not yet ended - the 'how long' for a known period perfectly fits an expression of frustration of current circumstances. Zechariah 7:5 strongly suggests that the 70 years there referred to had only just ended.
Your theory of the seventy years is dishonest, misrepresents the Bible and amounts to shabby scholarship.
Dishonest in what way? Misrepresents the bible or misrepresents the Society's interpretations thereof? You accuse me of shabby scholarship, yet you have not shown how any point I have stated is not consistent with valid interpretations of the bible.
-
toreador
I am going to keep bugging you Scholar till you answer this. You wrote:
3. Salvation does not depend upon a chronology or any date.
If this statement of yours is true then the GB has got themselves in deep trouble with God as they force JW's to accept this date or such ones are treated as dead. How do you think God feels about this if your statement is true? Tor
-
Leolaia
Leolaia has the same agenda and seeks to advance her own ideas, not willing to be open minded on those matters in which we cannot be dogmatic. Her thesis on the cross is sheer nonsense because she has an agenda in trying to deconstruct certain evidence and promote other evidence which she claims support her purpose. Anyone can write a thesis to prove a point but if it ignores primary materials and souces then it is of little value. This is not honest or ethical.
It is quite infuriating to read such a false remark as this, as the situation is entirely the opposite. What facts have I withheld, pseudo-scholar? What primary sources have I ignored? My stauros post was entirely based on primary sources, not the secondary sources that the WTS relies on. Indeed, I showed that their two appeals to primary sources (Livy and Lucian) were entirely misleading, if not grossly dishonest. If you accuse me of hiding contrary evidence from primary sources that proves that stauros could NOT mean "cross" (and that is the Roman execution instrument containing a patibulum, NOT a cross symbol), please provide it.
Your dishonesty truly disgusts me.
-
hillary_step
Scholar,It is up to the intelligent reader to make his own decisions on these matters and such a person should read widely in order to reduce the influence of such inherent bias.
Exactly Neil! Exactly! As the WTS are the only group of people on the planet that accepts the chronology that leads it to 607BCE, and that this chronology is rejected by all other Biblical scholars, secular scholars and the vast weight of evidence, can you not see a diachotony in your own argument. How do you measure bias? Is it not obvious to you where the bias is taking place on this issue, given the rejection by all 'intelligent readers' on this planet of WTS chronology. Are you suggesting that the WTS is 'widely read' and 'unbiased' on this issue? I would challenge that vigorously on the basis of your own argument presented above!
Obviously you have a bias against me because I seek to defend Wt theology and chronology, nothing I can say will diminish that bias and hatred towards me.
I do not have a personal bias against you as an individual. I do not hate you. I do believe you to be a proud man who will not accept truth because it would undermine a lie you have believed in for decades, but I can understand that. Many of us have walked that path before you.
I believe that the people you represent cynically adhere to doctrine that serves to enslave millions of people, have caused death and misery for thousands, have left numerous people in poverty, imprisoned, raped, murdered, mentally damaged and have used such doctrine as a weapon to stifle the emotions of the innocent.
When you seek to defend the doctrine of such people, and when that doctrine is clearly wrong, I will oppose you or any other person who peddles such interpretation as a truth. However, unlike yourself I will not lie in my attempt to defend my viewpoint.
Best regards - HS
-
hillary_step
Toreodor,
I am going to keep bugging you Scholar till you answer this. You wrote:
3. Salvation does not depend upon a chronology or any date.
If this statement of yours is true then the GB has got themselves in deep trouble with God as they force JW's to accept this date or such ones are treated as dead. How do you think God feels about this if your statement is true
In all fairness to Scholar he went some way to answering this question a year or so ago. He acknowledged that the GB had overstepped their authority in disfellowshipping those who disagree with the 607BCE chronology. He is not prepared to follow the intellectual implications of what this actually means in practice and would not comment on how he would deal with such a person in a judicial committee, but at heart he knows the GB is very wrong to have disfellowshipped thousands of people for questioning this chronology. It continues to take this action to this day. Fear and cowardice lies at the root of much cultic dogma, but we have all been there, and in many ways I sympathize with the cognitive dissonance that he lives with. Best regards - HS
-
Narkissos
Just a few remarks on this increasingly diversified thread.
About Jeremiah 29:10, I am amused at scholar calling Jenni's article on Jeremiah 3:17, which he has not read, "seminal" -- just as he calls the NWT "brilliant" when he is so obviously in no position to assess a Hebrew-English translation. When he finally gets to read it he will realise, as I already said, that this article doesn't touch on Jeremiah 29:10 at all as it is only concerned with locative uses of le (Jeremiah 29:10 clearly falling out of that scope). The point of this article is to provide a diachronical analysis of the uses of le in Biblical Hebrew, by distinguishing (1) a strictly non-locative use in older texts (by a tighter study of the expressions in which le was misunderstood as a static locative in 19th-century lexicography, based on the needs of translation in European languages) and (2) a directional locative use in later texts (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; to which also belongs the later gloss in Jeremiah 3:17). However, I don't doubt scholar will (too) easily answer that Jeremiah 29:10 is THE exception to those descriptive rules, disregarding the fact that all structural parallels point to a dative, not locative meaning -- ultimately because Brooklyn Mommy says so (although the Copenhagen and Stockholm Aunties do not seem to agree).
On stauros as (according to scholar) a Jewish mode of execution, it is most probably against the original meaning of Deuteronomy 21:23 (implying the exposition of an already dead corpse on a stake), although Deuteronomy has been interpreted this way in the Temple Scroll of Qumran (64:6-13), which might provide some background for Galatians 3:13. Anyway, referring to Jesus' crucifixion the Gospel of John (18:29ff) clearly suggests that it is precisely the Roman form of execution, in opposition to the Jewish practice of stoning to which the Gospel refers elsewhere ([8:5ff]; 10:31ff; 11:8). Whence the charge of being a lawbreaker by Roman standards, which the author considers providential.
So Pilate went out to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"
On parousia, I have almost nothing to add to AlanF's excellent analysis and to Pole's remark on etymology -- only a point I have already made elsewhere: the WT shameless exploitation of the Greek etymology of parousia, disregarding the basic principles of semantics (etymology is not meaning), would fall flat in a Semitic text. Afaik there is no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent to parousia which could harbor both the meaning of "official arrival" and the etymology of "presence". What the Aramaic tradition offers is only Marana tha' "Lord, come".
They answered, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law." The Jews replied, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." (This was to fulfill what Jesus had said when he indicated the kind of death he was to die.)
This of course is hardly meaningful to people who analyse the Gospels as Greek constructions (as I do) -- but it is shattering to the WT which holds that the Gospels contain an exact rendition of a historical Jesus' Semitic words. If they do, the WT theological argument on the etymology of the Greek words is simply absurd.