Let me first address some of the points raised in your letter, in the order
they appear, and then perhaps return to my proposal, that we look at it
in levels, reexamine the "English" translation and then seek for a deeper
understanding of the Greek phrase.
You wrote:
>I was interested in your translation. On the other hand I think of PAREIMI
>more in the sense of something the readers would have, something present
>with them.
Think were you to "tie" PAROUSIA close onto PAREIMI, in any substantive
sense of co-gnation, you'd be doing both words injustice, by the tight
etymological association, and certainly the word that concerns us, OUSA,
rather the root here, which is quite a significant distance from EIMI.
>Doesn't ALHQEIA have to be ALHQEIA at all times and in whatever era?
No, it does not have to be "ALHQEIA at all times and in whatever era",
in one way, the, let us call it here the, relative way; whereus in the
other, the one that Peter has in mind, yes, it would have to be always one,
to satisfy Peter's absolute intention, as it seems to so appear
>Or is there ALHQEIA for Noah's day, Abraham's, Moses'. Jesus', etc.
>as this passage is often interpreted from the mere English rendering?