think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
auldsoul: Jesus didn't say his parousia would be like the days before the flood. He said his parousia would be like the arrival of the flood.
Matt 24:37But as the days of Noah were, so also will the parousia of the Son of Man be.
38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the parousia of the Son of man will be.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
Oh and let not forget this fellow:
W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field.
Who said: W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival
Oh but according to the all knowing AlanF he does not qualify because he had an agenda and is not a 'modern' scholar.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
I would just like to thank AlanF for his work in providing these source for supporting JWs view as to what parousia means. Allow me to highlight in red the parts that support our belief.
One definition of parousia is the "arrival or visit of a king."
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 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.”
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
Alan:Taken right from WTS publications, of course.
: W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field.
: W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival
Me: Nope, I didn't get those quotes from the WT publications. Perhaps they are in there but thats not where I got them from. At any rate, AlanF would have us believe that Vine had an agenda when he tells us what parousia means. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Who do we believe Vine or the sources AlanF quotes? I chose both since they both basically are saying the same things.
Parousia is the vist from the king. This involves his arrival or coming and thereafter his continued presence. Seems to me all the scholars are pretty much in agreement. So whats the problem?
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
So AlanF is downing the NWT for translating the word parousia (which literally means presence) as presence. Something that other Bibles do when they want to. Other Bibles decide whether to translate it as presence or coming based on what they believe the context is saying or based on their theology.
Young's Literal Translation on the other hand agrees with the NWT at 1 john 2:28: may not be ashamed before him, in his presence;
Of course Young's Translation is a literal translation and therefore literally translates the word thus allowing the reader to understand that there is a difference between parousia and words translated as coming. The NWT by consistently rendering parousia as presence allows the reader to do the same, to see the difference in the word for presence and the word for coming.
If the NWT had used liberties and translated it as coming AlanF would have claimed that we translate words to fit whatever we are trying to convey. Did you ever think that maybe JWs beliefs are based on the fact that parousia or presence was really the word used in the Bible rather than coming up with a doctrine and then trying to translate the Bible to fit that doctrine. 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.
For example the King James Version at Matt 24 reads:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a little bit misleading wouldn't you say. And obscures the true meaning. It gives the impression that the same word is used for coming in all instances when that is clearly not the case. The NWT is not trying to deceive the reader but is literally translating parousia for all to see the difference in parousia and erchomai. How do you explain the use of two different words? Why not just use Erchomai not parousia in every place if the writer is merely wanting to convey the meaning of erchomai (coming)? And how do you explain the eating drinking marry and carrying on of everyday life during the 'coming' of the Lord when destruction is taking place? And do you really understand the teachings of JWs concerning the parousia? For some reason, unexplainable to me, you want to argue about what sources say as to the definition of parousia when most all support what JWs teach about parousia. Your quoting of sources explaining what parousia is leads me to believe that you have no idea what JWs teach about parousia. Because parousia does involve an arrival or coming and thereafter an extended visit of the king or presence of the king. This is what JWs believe. Your quoting of the many sources only bolsters our position for the parousia of Christ. Understand that parousia means an arrival and presence of the king not just his arrival or coming. Parousia, as the sources AlanF and I have both quoted from have shown, means more than just his arrival or coming. This presence or parousia last until the end of the system of things at Armageddon. Tell us, what will be the sign of your parousia and the conclusion of the system of things? Thereafter Jesus told of many events that would take place to recognize that he had arrived as king and was present and he also told of the end of the system of things at the great tribulation and armageddon. He answered their question quite clearly how to recognize that he had arrived and was present. It would be like the days of Noah, not total chaos, but people living their everyday lives not taking any note that Jesus was present and that he was gathering people to his organization who would preach the good news. 2 Peter 3:3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised parousia of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.” |
It is during the last days which also corresponds with Jesus' parousia that this would be fulfilled. During the parousia people would be saying, 'where is this promised parousia?' You probably don't realize it but you, AlanF, and your friends have had a part in fulfilling this prophecy. And for this we thank you.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
How do I know that every prophecy of Daniel points to the king of God's kingdom. Because the Bible says so.
Dan 2:44, "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;"
Dan 7:27 "And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the rulerships will serve and obey even them."
Dan 8:25: "And against the Prince of princes he will stand up, but it will be without hand that he will be broken."
Dan 12:1 "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."
Even Daniel 5 concerning the conquest of Babylon points to the Greater Cyrus, the King Christ Jesus, who Jehovah calls 'his anointed one' in Isaiah 45:1.
How about Daniel 4. Does it also conclude with God's Kingdom? Dan 4:17 "By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
To those who would attempt to discredit Vine saying he had an agenda.
So what? What is the agenda of Carl Jonnson and Alan F? I think it is obvious what their agenda is.
But let me remind you of Vine's credentials: W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field. And Alanf's sources that he quoted did not even disagree with Vine. Some of them outrightly said that parousia can be properly translated as presence. Even so, I have shown the Greek words used in Matt 24 and they prove beyond a doubt that there is a difference between parousia and coming. And the context certainly and definitely allows for that difference. In fact, if the difference is not shown and both words are translated as coming the whole context becomes confusing and the true meaning of what is being said is lost.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
And Steve to you also:
Why do you keep trying to bring up the same thing over and over again. It has been thoroughly covered. Times means what the Bible says it means. Thats it. Whatever else you say is redundant. 3.5 times = 1260 days according to Revelation. Your question makes no sense.
And just as logic and reason on the 70 weeks necessitates applying a day for a year so does the 7 times. I have explained it thoroughly. I realize you do not want to accept the clear and reasonable explanation. You want it on a silver platter. I understand that you don't want to dig deeply into the Bible and connect the dots that are there to be connected. I understand that you do not want to accept that Ezekiel 21 is the very same story as Daniel 4. That one explains the other. I understand that you don't want to accept Isa 6 showing the massive tree was cut down in 607 and the stump of the tree was the holy seed. You wanted Daniel to say, " Hey look boys and girls, 7 times is 2520 days and applying a day for a year as in other cases in the Bible we can arrive at the end of the Gentile Times, 1914." So you want to walk outside your door and find the treasure sitting on your front porch and not have to look at the map and dig for the treasure.
If you want to believe that Daniel 4 is merely a story about some king going mad 2500 years ago then you will have to rip Ezekiel 21 and Isaiah 6 and Revelation 12 out of your Bible and ignore them. Then you can pick up your blinders and put them on and continue to wear them.
Every prophecy in Daniel is about the King of God's kingdom.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
Steve: thirdwitness, I think you've just validated AlanF.
:W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival.
If you think this validates Alan then you do not understand what JWs teach about Christ's presence. We teach that he arrived in Kingdom power in 1914 and has been present ever since in the new capacity as ruler of God's kingdom. His presence culminates at Armageddon.
Just look at the question: What will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system?
Then look at Jesus' answer. He brings out many things that would happen that would cover a distinct time period. It would be just like the days of Noah until the flood came. All the things Jesus foretold is evidence that he is present. His presence extends over a time period. It is not just his coming to execute the final judgment. During his presence there would be events taking place that would occur before that final execution. These things that he said would occur makes up the sign of his presence. Some would try to make it so complicated so as to mislead others. And even try to make you think that JWs teach something that they don't really teach.
think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
And by the way, fisherman and others. The Hillah Stele is not how 539 is arrived at. There are other ways. When I have time I will bring some of it forward. Maybe on another thread. But know this that the same secular 'evidence' that points to 587 is not all the same evidence that points to 539. One way 539 can be arrived at is by using the rules of the Perisian Kings after 539, nothing to do with the Babylonian kings since they ruled before 539..
