Steve and others, you talk about Chirst's coming as if it is a noun. Parousia is the noun. Coming is just a verb. There is no special greatness about the word coming. If you come to the stadium to watch an event such as a baseball game you are present at it. If you come with me to the concession stand you are still present at the stadium. If you then come over to the souvenier shop you are still present at the stadium. After the game you may come down on the field and get autographs. You are still present at the stadium. First you came to the stadium and so you were present. Then you came to the concession stand to get a hot dog. Then you came over to the shop and bought a giant we're number one finger. Then you came down on the field and got Barry Bond's authograph. You only came to the stadium one time. While present at the stadium you have done many things. You try to say there is a 2nd coming and a 3rd coming according to JWs. There is one parousia of Christ and during that parousia he does a number of things. One of the things he does is comes at Armageddon to destroy the wicked. Still during his presence. Do not try to make coming out to be some magic word. It just decribes the actions of someone, anyone, not just Christ. Erchomai (coming) appears many times in the Bible.
thirdwitness
JoinedPosts by thirdwitness
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
AlanF: You seem to think that the NWT consistently translates Greek words into the same English word.
AlanF must be on his way to see the wizard of oz with his strawman. He writes a whole page trying to refute something that I never claimed or said or even thought. Nor does the WT claim this about the NWT. I only mentioned that the NWT consistently translates soul, hades, sheol, and parousia.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
Auldsoul: You haven't responded yet. I am curious, did the master erchomai around 1914, or not?
And just to make this clear, yes, the master did erchomai in 1914. And he stayed thus his parousia began. He will erchomai forth again at Armageddon at the end of his parousia to finish the job he started in 1914.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
Auldsoul said: If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?
Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
The visions of Revelation take place in the Lord's day from 1914 onward. Jesus is speaking to the congregations as king of God's kingdom. Besides that. Even when on earth Jesus was king of kings because he was the rightful king to take up the throne of God's kingdom. But he waited untill the 7 times had been fulfilled, the appointed time set by Jehovah to take up his kingship as rightful king of God's Messianic kingdom.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
Auldsoul, Answer to your question found here:
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
So Revelation 6 tells us he received the crown and began his ride. As he rides he gathers his followers. As he continues to ride he takes up the long sword described in Revelation 19 and destroys all opposers of the kingdom. It is one continuous ride that culminates at Armageddon. He doesn't get off his horse till the conquest is completed. The conquest includes first gathering those loyal ones from every nation to his side and then destroying those opposed to his kingship.
Jesus' parousia = Jesus' ride on the white horse.
Sign of his parousia points to 1914.
Seven times points to 1914.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
Let me try once more to explain parousia in simple language because some still do not understand what JWs teach.
Jesus becomes the newly established king of God's kingdom in 1914 as testified by the world events and the 7 times. He did come as king. Coming is a correct word to use when speaking of his arrival in 1914. But coming does not accurately depict the meaning of parousia because not only did he come but he stayed. He is now present. And he will continue to be present until his coming forth at Armaggedon. Then he will come forth to execute the judgements that have been rendered.
Revelation 6 explains it also. Verse 2 And I saw, and, look! a white horse; and the one seated upon it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went forth conquering and to complete his conquest. We know this is Jesus because Revelation 19 tells us outrightly that he is the rider of the white horse. He received the crown in 1914 and went forth conquering or subduing in the midst of his enemies as Psalms 110 tells us. As you read Psalms 110 notice the order of the action that Jesus takes.
2 The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:]
“Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.”3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force.
In the splendors of holiness, from the womb of the dawn,
You have your company of young men just like dewdrops...5 Jehovah himself at your right hand
Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.6 He will execute judgment among the nations;
He will cause a fullness of dead bodies.
He will certainly break to pieces the head one over a populous land.Did you notice what he does after becoming king upon Mt Zion? First he collects together his large army. These are the ones preaching the good news. Then he breaks kings to pieces. This is Armageddon.
The first part of his parousia involves gathering his organization. Some seem to think Jesus is not king and is not present because he has not crushed all the kingdoms of the earth. Big mistake to think that.
It is just as when a king returns after being absent to take up his rightful throne. Upon his arrival he realizes that many will not accept him as king. He knows beforehand that this will be the case. Although he has the power to overcome his enemies and take back his kingship immediately he does not do this because first he wants to find out who is loyal to him. He is present all the while as he gathers his loyal ones. After gathering the loyal ones it is time to destroy his enemies. At that point he comes forth and crushes all opposers. At no time after his arrival did he leave. He stayed and was present and conducted the work of gathering those loyal to him. Then at the appointed time he comes forth and destroys those enemies of his rulership. Really it is not a difficult thing to understand for those honest with themselves and look at the Bible without prejudice against JWs.
There are numerous scriptures that tells us that Jesus would become king after his ascension to heaven. Daniel 7:13,14, Daniel 2:44, Revelation 11 and 12, Luke 19 about securing kingly power, to name a few.
Yes, the truth is really simple. It is the apostates that want to mislead you and make it complicated.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
And of course there is Israel P. Warren who AlanF knows about but of course would not dare mention because he is not a modern scholar.
We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,—THE PRESENCE.
From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word ‘coming’ nor the Latin ‘advent’ is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, ‘presence,’ in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical [root] idea of them the same. ‘Coming’ and ‘advent’ give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; ‘parousia’ that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .
"Had our translators done with this technical word ‘parousia’ as they did with ‘baptisma,’—transferring it unchanged,—or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a ‘second Presence,’ I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, ‘second advent,’ and ‘second coming,’ would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period,—that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
"the SIGN of THY presence" The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson,
"the sign of thy presence" The Emphasised Bible, by J. B. Rotherham,
"the signal of Your presence" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton
I know, I know, all morons and not 'modern scholars'.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink 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.
-
-
thirdwitness
More from Bible scholars on parousia:
J.B. Rotherham was a scholar from Britain who translated the Bible known as the Emphasised Bible. At first Rotherham translated parousia 4 times as presence and 20 times as arrival I believe it was. But in a later edition of his translation, in the appendix Rotherham stated, "In this edtion the word parousia is uniformly rendered "presence" ("coming," as a representative of this word,being set aside). The original term occurs 24 times in the N.T.. The sense of "presence" is so plainly shown by the contrast with "absence" (implied in 2 Cor.x.10, and expressed in Phi.ii.12)that the question naturally arises, -Why not always so render it? The more so, inas much as there is in 2 Pe.i.16 also, a peculiar fitness in our English word "presence." This passage, it will be remembered, relates to our lord's transformation on the Mount. The wonderful manifestation there made was a diplay and sample of "presence" rather than "coming."(cp.Mt.xvii.2.n.)and the "majesty" of his glorified person was then disclosed. His bodily presence was one which implied and exerted 2power"; so that "power" befitting such a "presence": and the three favoured disciples were at one and the same moment witnesses of both. The difficulty expressed in the notes in the 2nd edition of this N.T. in the way of so yielding to the weight of this evidence as to render parousia always by "presence," lay in the seeming incongruity of regarding "presence" as an event which would happen at a particular time and which would fall into rank as one of a series of events, as 1 Co.xv.23. especially appeared to require. The translator still feels the force of this objection, but is withdrawn from taking his stand upon it any longer by the reflection that, after all, the difficulty may be imaginary. The parousia, in any case, is still in the future, and may therefore be enshrouded in a measure of obscurity which only fullfillment can clear away: it may,in fine,be both a period, -more or less extended, during which certain things shall happen, -and an event, coming on and passing away as one of a series of divine interpositions. Christ is raised as a firstfruit-that is one event; He returns and vouchsafes his "presence," during which he raises his own-that is another event, however large and prolonged; and finally comes another cluster of events constituting "the end," Hence, after all, "presence" may be the most widely and permanently satisfying translation of the looked-for parousia of the Son of man."
Notice that Rotherham decided it best to translate all 24 occurences of parousia as presence. No doubt he is not a modern scholar and is also simply a moron with an agenda. The only truely modern and non-moronic scholars without agendas are those who agree with AlanF's thinking. Ha Ha Ha.