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
