Wow all!
One of my favourites is the erroneous translation of paraousia when the context is taken into account, as summarised by C O Jonnson, on which the following coments are based:
Earliest versions of the New Testament, produced when Koine Greek was still a living language, preferred to render the Greek noun parousia by words meaning coming rather than presence in passages about the second coming of Christ. This was done in spite of parousia primarily meaning presence, and translated as presence in other passages.
New discoveries
The answer to this puzzle was solved in the late 1800s following excavations of ancient settlements. Hundreds of thousands of texts on papyrus, parchment, and potsherds, and inscriptions on stone and metal revolutionised the study of the language of biblical Greek. In 1908 scholar Professor Deissmann devoted several pages to the word parousia. He explained that now “…from the Ptolmaic period down into the 2 nd century AD we are able to trace the word [parousia] in the East as a technical expression for the arrival or visit of a king or an emperor.”
As a result of the discoveries about biblical Greek, the consensus among modern scholars is that parousia in the New Testament in relation to the second coming of Christ, is used in its technical sense of a royal visitation.
The visit of a king fits the biblical context “with power and great glory” sitting “upon the throne of his glory”.
Watchtower scholarly claims examined
But the Watchtower too claims scholarly support for its position. In the NWT 1984 edition, pages 1576 and 1577 (appendix 5b) cite 4 bible translations supporting the word “presence” at Matthew 24:3. What they fail to explain is that 3 of these translations are obsolete as they were written before the discoveries of Deissmann and his colleagues. The fourth translation is their own NWT 1950 which includes references written by Dr Israel P Warren. Unfortunately Dr Warren’s work arguing for “presence” is also obsolete dating back to 1879! Deissmann
However, the article also refers to 3 modern Greek lexicons.
They say the first two (Liddell and Scott) and (Kittel/Friedrich’s TDNT) both give “presence” as the meaning of parousia. They do not tell their readers, however, that both these same lexicons go on to explain that parousia is also used in the technical sense of “the visit of a king”. Why are the readers not told that both these lexicons emphasise that this is how the word is used in the New Testament when it refers to the parousia of Jesus Christ?
The second of these lexicons spends only a few sentences on the primary meaning “presence”. The rest of the article, covering 14 pages in all, is a discussion of the technical use of the term, demonstrating that this is how the word is used in New Testament texts dealing with the parousia of Jesus Christ. But how would the Watchtower readers ever find this out?
Finally, the third lexicon (Bauer) is quoted saying parousia “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank.”
The scholars that the Watchtower still relies upon to uphold the “presence” translation all wrote a good while before the study of vernacular papyri revolutionised our knowledge of the common Hellenistic speech.
Conclusion
The evidence from the earliest translations, from modern translations and lexicons of the Greek language, and especially from the context and related passages, all testifies that the use of parousia at Matthew 24:3 cannot refer to an invisible presence of a two-stage coming, but does refer to a future arrival.
Yet another nail in the coffin of the idea that the date 1914 might have some significance. I believe t he Watchtower leadership have known for many years that the date has no validity, but they dare not admit it – for they would risk losing millions. The last time they discussed altering it (to 1957) was in the 1970s.
