Wobble World

I have found the following explanation to be sadly lacking. Specifically the proposition relies on a confusing of the 'Days of the Son of Man' with the 'Revealing of the Son of Man'. Jesus makes it quite clear that these two events are distinct. Whilst e-Watchman acknowledges they are distinct he also confuses the two by applying the 'Days of the Son of Man' when the 'Revealing of the Son of Man' are clearly intended.

So first lets be clear as to what the 'Days of the Son of Man' are and what the 'Revealing of the Son of Man' is:

So according to Luke 17;26, 27 the 'Days of the Son of Man' are likened to an extended period of eating and drinking that occurs before everyone other than Noah and his family are destroyed. And likewise Luke 17:28 compares the 'Days of the Son of Man' to a period of eating and drinking and planting and building in Sodom.



So the 'Days of the Son of Man' clearly relate to a period when everyone is going about their normal business before an impending destruction is to occur.



Now let us consider how the account goes on to explain what is the 'Revealing of the Son of Man':

So clearly the 'Revealing of the Son of Man' relates to the destruction itself which occurs after the period of eating and drinking.

Another scripture to consider:

Once again eating and drinking (this time upon wickedness and violence) leading up to the 'establishment' a specific 'day'.

How much clearer can it be? We have two events:

(1) Days of the Son of Man - period of eating and drinking etc...
(2) Revealing of the Son of Man - final destruction of the eaters and the drinkers etc...

On top of this in the account of Matthew we learn that the 'Days of the Son of Man' are also called the 'Presence of the Son of Man'
 

From this then we get point number three:

(3) Presence of the Son of Man - period of eating and drinking etc... [see (1)] - equivalent term

In e-Watchman's attempt to answer Third Witness' question he clearly blurs the distinction between these two and explicitly mixes them up. This is the only way he can hold his theology together.

In the 17th chapter of Luke Jesus not only compared the end of this system with the days of Noah, he also indicated that the days of Lot establish a pattern as well. Here is what Jesus said, as recorded in Luke: “Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.”

Note that Jesus did not compare his presence to the days of Lot before the destruction.

This is not true. Jesus explains two things. The 'Days of the Son of Man' and the 'Revealing of the Son of Man'. The critical point in the text between the emphasis upon the 'Days' and the emphasis upon the 'Revealing' is the word 'But' at the beginning of Luke 17:29. This is the point in the text where Jesus finishes drawing out attention to the 'Days' and brings home the meaning of the 'Revealing'.

e-Watchman is about to do his best to get this clear logic utterly confused.

In fact, astute readers ought to notice a subtle difference between Jesus’ comments in the 17th chapter of Luke with what he said on a later occasion in the gospel of Matthew. Please note that in reference to Sodom being destroyed Jesus did not compare it to his presence at all. He compared it to the “day when the Son of man is to be revealed.”

Exactly! Destruction of Sodom = 'Revealing of the Son of Man' let us not forget this vital truth. [see (2)]

Yet, in the 24th chapter of Matthew, Jesus said that the “presence of the Son of man will be” as Noah’s days. Of course, there may be subtle differences in the presence and revelation of the Son of man, but essentially Jesus uses the two terms interchangeably when discussing the patterns established by the days of Lot and Noah.

Here is where the confusion is attempted. Fortunately we spotted it. The parallel account in Matthew shows us that the term 'Presence of the Son of Man' is identical to that of the 'Days of the Son of Man' [see (1) & (3)] There is not a 'subtle difference in the presence and revelation' as e-Watchman would like you to believe. There is an almighty and huge difference between the two! As we have already clearly seen the 'Presence of the Son of Man' is the same as the 'Days of the Son of Man' which is clearly the period of eating and drinking before the final destruction. On the other hand the 'Revealing of the Son of Man' is clearly the destruction itself. Why would we want to get those two confused? 

At any rate, in Luke Jesus compares the revealing of the Son of man to the day that lot came out of Sodom, not to the years leading up to the day when the angels took Lot by the hand and ushered him to safety.

Exactly! the 'Revealing of the Son of Man' = the day of destruction! [see (2)]

 Interestingly, in this regard, Jesus also urged his followers to “Remember the wife of Lot” during the great tribulation upon antitypical Jerusalem. (Watchtower Society)

Now, reasoning on this aspect, if “the day that Lot came out of Sodom” establishes a pattern for “the day when the Son of man is to be revealed,” as it surely does, and Christians are also to “Remember the wife of Lot” during the tribulation, when they will be required to flee for their lives out of a doomed city-like organization, then it is apparent that the revelation of the Son of man occurs during the tribulation, and not years before.

Exactly! No one is arguing that the 'Revealing' is yet future. However e-Watchman's tone encourages you to think so.

Surely, no one will be so unreasoning so as to insist that the Son of man was revealed in 1914. Well, let’s hope not anyway.

Exactly! No one is so unreasoning as to suggest this. No one is suggesting this. But e-Watchman clearly wants you to believe they do. This is a 'straw man'. e-Watchman is now about to play the card of confusion. He is hoping you have forgotten the clear distinction made in points (1) and (2) above. He is about to claim they are the same event. We already know they are not. Therefore we will not be fooled will we?

And since the presence and the revealing of the Son of man are used in the same way

Well we know for certain they are NOT used in the same way. This is probably why e-Watchman took so long to come up with this answer. He needed to get the wording right to maximize the likelihood of causing confusion. Confusing these two terms is critical to e-Watchman's theology. But we were paying attention. We were not confused.

, it is apparent that the presence of the Son of man occurs immediately before and during the tribulation as well – certainly not decades before.

We have already seen this is clearly not true. The 'presence' is clearly linked to a period of eating and drinking when mankind is oblivious to the danger about to ensue. There is no 'immediate' about it. It is likened to the 'days of Noah' which we know lasted 120 years. Later on e-Watchman will attempt once again to get round this.

Now, as regards “the days of Noah”; in context Jesus said: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.”

Okay. Despite the fact that e-Watchman claims to have quoted this scripture 'in context' he has actually completely obscures the context by his choice of where he begins the quotation. He leads you to believe that Jesus starts by stating there is a day and an hour that nobody knows and proceeds to tell you what it is.

This is false.

Jesus tells you what it is first of all and then goes on to tell you you do not know the day or the hour. e-Watchman has cut off the beginning of Jesus' dialog and lost this vital point. Let's quote it in context. At this point Jesus is actually relating the time of the end several times. Each time he uses a different illustration. Lets go through all of it.

These things are so much easier to understand when you really do keep the proper context rather than cutting off the end of a passage and grafting on the beginning of another one to which it does not belong.

Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly believe that the “days of Noah” are the 120 years that preceded the Deluge, during which time Noah preached and constructed the ark. Hence, the assumption is that the presence of Christ is spread out over a century and is comparable to the decades leading up to the Flood; the period when the world was oblivious to Jehovah’s impending judgment.

We have just shown this 'common belief' among Jehovah's Witnesses to be solidly founded in scripture.

However, Jesus explicitly said that nobody knows the day or hour that his presence is to commence.

We have just shown this statement to be utterly false. In context Jesus was clearly talking about the 'destruction' when he said we would not know the day or the hour. He had given us explicit signs to look out for the 'presence' he was obviously expecting us to know and recognize the 'presence' due to all the signs he was giving us. Otherwise why bother giving us signs?

Obviously, that absolutely rules out the notion that Jesus’ presence began on October 1-2 in the year 1914.

Well that's what you would like us to believe but we have just demonstrated that we were expected to recognize the 'presence'. We would not know when the 'destruction' was to occur though. So it is entirely possible that the 'presence' began in the year '1914' as their is no scriptural bar to us gaining that knowledge. Only by quoting a portion of Matthew out of context is it possible to give the impression that this information regarding the 'presence' was 'divinely' hidden.

Not only that, but Jesus’ presence is also equated with his coming;

Actually it was NOT equated with his coming. Here again is the confusion. In the above text Matthew 24:42 Jesus' 'coming' is referring to his coming to perform 'destruction'. This occurs after his 'presence' as already shown.

which Christ also stated in various places that his disciples did not know when that is to occur.

Once again it is the 'destruction' NOT the 'presence' we do not know the hour of. You failed to confuse us. Nice try.

Clearly, if Christ came in 1914 it would obviate the need to stay on the watch. Unfortunately, that point is totally lost upon Jehovah’s Witnesses generally.

Lets be clear. If Christ began his 'presence' in 1914 we need to be even more on the Watch for the coming destruction because as already noted, we do not know the day nor the hour of it.

(Desperately clinging to the sinking doctrine of 1914; apparently Bethel is reaching the point of a complete break with reality; evidenced by certain members of the Governing Body floating the nonsensical notion that Christ has multiple comings – seven in total!)

Personally I like to hear the whole story and see scriptural evidence before dismissing any interpretation.

Good council.

Furthermore, Jesus stressed that his presence would result in a separating phenomenon; whereby, one will be taken along and the other abandoned.

Err no! This was likened to the 'destruction' NOT the presence. Once again e-Watchman tries to confuse two clear and distinct events in his garbled interpretation for the unwary.

That, obviously, has not occurred yet. And it is precisely that separation which Jesus compared to “the days of Noah”; specifically, to the day when Noah entered into the ark. That is when the wicked were abandoned to destruction – swept away – while Noah and his family were “taken along” – preserved.

Garble, garble, garble! Once again e-Watchman has completely confused the presence with the destruction! He is trying to say that 'the days of Noah' are the same as the 'flood that swept them away'. We already know they are not.
He is however correct in asserting that the 'separating' is equal to the 'destruction'. Wicked - 'abandoned' to destruction, Noah and family 'taken along' in preservation.

It should be apparent to thinking persons that the point Jesus was emphasizing is that his presence would commence with unexpected suddenness and would initiate a series of irreversible events, just as on the day when Noah and his family entered into the ark, which will ultimately lead to this present system being destroyed.

Err no! Jesus emphasized that his presence was just like a period of eating and drinking before Noah entered into the Ark. It is his 'revealing' that is to be sudden, at an hour we do not know. It was his 'revealing' that is likened to the day Noah entered the Ark with his family and the world was destroyed. Once again you failed to confuse the wary, thinking ones among us.