Pre- mid- or post-?
Submitted by chadrory on Sat, 2007-12-22 23:11.
I've been discussing the tribulation issue with some friends of mine this evening... We are all over the place. Every one of us supports one of the other. Me, well, I am of the opinion that Jesus is coming back. Plain and simple. I would love to hear your opinion.
Chad.
all that aside
No, I don't particularly favor the KJV over, say, the NKJV or the ASV or the NASV or whatever. As long as the translators are trying to get close to the text, that's good enough for me. I like to test a particular interpretation of a verse or passage against a variety of translations, to see how different scholars have rendered a particular verse over the ages. I use KJV in my posts because, primarily, I am familiar with it, and because the engine I run off of is set to KJV by default.
I can understand your disagreement. Son of Man is a difficult symbol. There were two distinct branches of expectation for Israel--the road of suffering, (Isaiah & Ezekiel especially reflect this), and the road of triumphant victory, when the Son of Man would live and reign forever (Daniel and the psalms, especially). For a Messiah to restore Israel and be faithful to the texts, he would have had to find a way to both suffer AND live forever.
While the NWT does seem to disagree with the BRANCH aspect particularly of Psalm 80 and the following development of that metaphor throughout the entire Bible, it doesn't seem to disagree with the Son of Man as Israel in the OT--at least, not what I've seen thus far in your posts. Tell me, why does the Watchtower disagree? What is the basis of that disagreement?
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5.39-40